On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > I'm not seeing how that helps in any way, though. Let's look at two > situations, one with same-origin restrictions and one without. > > 1. Alice creates a site and purchases a font to use on it. Bob sees > the font, likes it, and wants to use it on his own site. Same-origin > restrictions are in place, though, so he looks at the stylesheet to > find where the font is located on the server, downloads it to his own > server, and links to his copy in his stylesheet. > > 2. Alice creates a site and purchases a font to use on it. Bob sees > the font, likes it, and wants to use it on his own site. Since there > are no same-origin restriction, he looks at the stylesheet to find > where the font is located on the server, then links to Alice's server > in his stylesheet. > In situation 1, Bob has obviously and deliberately copied the font. In situation 2, he has not. I'm not lawyer, but it seems to me the legal and ethical issues in situation 1 are clearer than in situation 2. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 00:42:19 UTC