Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

> The proposal of "TTF/OTF only" would force restricted-license font vendors to either permit use on the web of their fonts in that format or not permit use of their fonts on the web.
>
> The proposal of "TTF/OTF plus ____", the blank to be filled in later, would not force such a choice upon those vendors.
>
> The rationalizations offered by the vendors for rejecting "TTF/OTF only" do not apply to "TTF/OTF plus _____".  Nothing in "TTF/OTF plus ____" requires them to permit web use of their fonts in TTF/OTF.

This is too theoretical, too remote from reality.
Font vendors only have that choice when selling new licenses, except when something doesn't work this is the only time when vendor and licensee communicate and be it indirectly when the licensee is presented the EULA and agrees to it. The issue is not licenses to be sold in future but those already sold:
(a) Users already have TTF/OTF fonts, licensed for print use, and these fonts work just as fine with @font-face.
(b) "Downloadable fonts" are as easily downloadable as this term indicates.
The combination of these two aspects turns every site which employs @font-face into a font filesharing host.

The font user may use and thus expose fonts without being aware of breaking the license agreement.* Browser makers however offer the infrastructure for this knowingly (after the extensive discussion on this list nobody can say he doesn't know).

* Not only does he use the font in a way forbidden according to the license.. By exposing the font that way and allowing others to download the font, he gives more than the allowed number of users (this determines the price upon purchase) access to the font.

Karsten

Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 20:49:01 UTC