- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:12:57 -0700
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Thomas Lord wrote: > If we boil that down, you object to circumstances > which have people: > > [...]benefiting from my work [..] enjoying > value that my work adds [...] [yet] giving me > absolutely nothing in return, not even respect. > [....] [Browser makers are an example.] That conflates two separate points, in a way that makes it easy for you to address only the second. I made the point about browser makers largely as an afterthought, and I don't want it to get in the way of the main point which is this: Rightly or wrongly, type designers and font developers see TTF/OTF linking as simply font filesharing, opening the door to the totally unregulated and practically unpoliceable copying and using of any font anywhere. [If you think that fear is unfounded, it is up to you to convince type designers and font developers that they are wrong and that this isn't going to happen. The trouble is, it is their work and their livelihood that is being deliberately put at risk by a second party, not yours, so don't be surprised if you have a hard time convincing them or if they ask you to put your money where your mouth is.] You wanted to know what would motivate font vendors to object to TTF/OTF linking -- with or without a secondary format that may or may not, but probably won't, be significantly less open to piracy --, and I suggested what might motivate type designers (who might also be font vendors but might also not), which is the proliferation of unlicensed use of fonts and hence unlicensed benefit from the added value of our work. Now, as I have expressed elsewhere in this discussion, I am not necessarily opposed, personally, to TTF/OTF linking. I am seeking to explain to you why your presumptions about the *reasons* for objections from font makers/vendors might be incorrect or, at least, incomplete. Ironically, I am growing less favourable to TTF/OTF linking as this discussion progresses, so maybe you want to stop talking. :) JH
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 01:13:42 UTC