Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Sylvain Galineau<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Tab, sorry to not copy all the messages I'm responding to but just want to clarify what Ascender's proposal(s) are about. Nobody there - afaik - expects to be able to prevent piracy e.g. downloading their font, extracting it and using it for other purposes, putting it up on your website and doing the CORS setup work allowing others to link to it etc.
>
> What they do want to achieve is a simple way of being able to say that you did it. You had to take that extra step to get that font or offer it for others to use; it doesn't really matter how trivial it is for you or me to work around their obfuscation but that we have to in the first place. As opposed to having nothing to do whatsoever with a raw file.
>
> That is the gist of it. Does it help ? Feel free to shoot questions, comment, flame - publicly or privately - if it doesn't.

Don't worry, I completely understand this.  ^_^  In fact, that's
precisely what I'm trying to make clear - that the focus of all the
restrictive proposals is to make it more difficult for *website
viewers* to use a font (these are the #1 and #2 aspects I noted
earlier), and similarly to make it more difficult for authors to take
a font linked by *another* author and use it on their page (this is
the #3 aspect I noted earlier).  It just appears that some people on
this list (Chris and Thomas, specifically, though possibly others) are
slightly mistaken about exactly what the various proposals are
intending (that or I'm just really bad at explaining myself, which
certainly is a possibility).

I just seems that a lot of the heat in this discussion is being
generated over subtle misconceptions that are difficult to spot
directly in the messages, so I'm trying to lay all the assumptions out
so that we can discuss without talking past each other accidentally.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 23:39:24 UTC