Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Aryeh Gregor<> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<> wrote:
>> In all the discussion, I can't recall this specific question being
>> asked, so I'll ask it: What exactly is the problem with supporting
>> TTF/OTF *and* another format?
> That anyone could copy fonts from their desktop to web server and have
> them work regardless of licensing.  I think.  I'm not sure why having
> to run a trivial program on them would discourage pirates more than
> non-pirates here, though.

Yes, that part is obvious.  I thought that the purpose of supporting
*two* formats, though, is that it would allow us to use appropriately
free fonts (where such copying is allowed by the license) without any
hassle, and the second format would be for placating font vendors.

Oh, though, I think I see what you're saying now, though.  You're
implying that supporting raw TTF would allow piratical *authors* to do
their thing more easily.  As you say, though, running a simple
conversion program over the files is equally easy.  It's not even a
fencepost, the way that dealing with a converted webfont is supposed
to be for website viewers who want to download a cool font they see
used on a website.  Plus, *no* format that has been discussed in this
entire debacle would prevent an author from using a font without
having proper licenses - the entire 'prevention' argument is against
website viewers.  To even *appear* to do so would require *true* DRM,
which has a 0% chance of succeeding.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:
> A "problem" in the minds of some may be
> that if TTF and OTF are required then new
> commercial and non-commercial markets would
> likely follow for web fonts that work with
> all popular applications, yet which are not
> restrictively licensed.
> In other words, demand would rise for fonts
> with fewer restrictions and supply would
> follow, diminishing the pricing power of
> vendors of restricted-license fonts.

That will happen or not regardless of the webfont format chosen.  *No*
proposal floated in this group pays the slightest bit of attention to
distribution rights on the author's side.  They generally differ only
on the degree of effort a website *viewer* has to expend to download a
font they see on a website and use it on their computer.


Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:49:02 UTC