- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:10:04 -0500
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] wrote: >>> 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. > > I certainly agree that no matter what, you'll see more fonts that clearly describe their licensing and restrictions. I certainly hope so! The obfuscated legalese that passes for licensing agreements these days is unacceptable. >>*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. > > Actually, I see it a little differently. Accurately and clearly describing the licensing rights you have in the font makes a HUGE different to the author. Certainly. That's still completely orthogonal to the webfont format, though. No format that has been proposed has ever used (presumably machine-readable) license terms to control how the *author* can use fonts. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:11:00 UTC