- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:30:33 +0000
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf >Of John Hudson >I can't speak for Microsoft, who in terms of browser market dominance >may, for all I know, be motivated as you suppose. Suggesting the definition of a free common format on the basis that a) font vendors are broadly OK with it b) all of one's competitors are ready, willing and able to implement it hardly seems an effective way to exclude one's competition ! One would expect such theories to be at least tested against known facts and revised appropriately. But given that this specific issue is the dead horse of one individual who will stick to his pet theory no matter how many better-informed individuals argue otherwise, this might remain too high a standard. Most of all, it also implies that motives alone - as 'interpolated' by self-appointed judges - are sufficient to invalidate whatever technical benefit a given solution may have. >This is especially true when the only tool to determine whether a given font should be used on the web in a one format rather than the other is the license agreement, and the browser makers are telling >us that they don't want to pay any attention to license information in the font. For a host of technical and legal reasons, these vendors do not want to be in the business of enforcing licensing agreements between their end-users and a third-party, let alone copyright laws. I don't think that's even specific to font resources, by the way.
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 23:31:24 UTC