- From: Christopher Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:39:35 +0600
- To: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
- CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Of course if MSIE were to agree to support OTF linking, as far as I can see there seems to be nothing preventing those responsible for maintaining the OTF spec (MS & Adobe) from including something like a machine readable EEULA table <http://www.eeulaa.org/> in a future version of *that* spec. A later version of MSIE might then enforce whatever restrictions were in that table (if present in a font). - CF Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Also sprach John Hudson: > > > But your comments imply that the only resistance to TTF/OTF linking is > > from Microsoft. In terms of browser makers, this may be the case, but > > there is also resistance to TTF/OTF linking from the makers, sellers and > > owners of fonts > > Indeed, there are various kinds of resistance from font vendors. I > met many of them at Atypi in St Petersburg last year. Some object to > all forms of web-based distribution, some want strong DRM, some want a > token technical barrier, and some say that TTF/OTF will work fine > (given the right license terms). > > Personally, I think that license terms is a better enforcer that > technical means, but I'm also open for a technical solution: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0412.html > > Cheers, > > -håkon
Received on Sunday, 5 July 2009 18:40:23 UTC