- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:37:22 -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 4:21 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] wrote: >>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. > > Is this what EOT and the embedding bit in TTF does? I'm not fully familiar with everything that EOT offers. You're correct about the TTF embedding bit, though it is trivial to override and is in fact *necessary* to override in many cases as many completely free fonts nevertheless have the embed bit set by overzealous programs. I believe I should amend my statement to say that none of the proposals floated on this list have placed "limiting the author" as a priority in any way. If any limitations have been requested, it is on the website viewers. Author limitations haven't come up once in any of the many, many messages that have been sent on this topic, to the best of my memory. So, the effect of licensing terms on page authors is still apparently orthogonal to discussion of an interoperable webfont format. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:38:25 UTC