Re: Font license vs. conversion between font formats

On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

> If the *whole point* of different format is to protect the data it
> contains and that different format does not protect the data, then  
> there
> is no reason, at all, to use that different format.

There is a difference between "does not protect data" and "can be  
broken if someone tries to break it." Everything can be broken.

> Am I correct that plain TTF/OTF files are not acceptable because "a
> party with malicious intent might copy it"?

This has been explained thoroughly on this list and elsewhere.

> I'm trying to argue that if plain TTF/OTF is not acceptable format
> because it does not offer protection, then any other freely usable
> format is not acceptable either. As a result, if font foundries are  
> not
> willing to license for TTF/OTF usage, they will not be willing to
> license to any system except a full-blown DRM (which does not exists).

This simply is not true. We proposed a format yesterday. We talked to  
foundries about it. They said that they could support it. It doesn't  
include any DRM.

> Also notice that rules and laws have *always* a punishment for not
> following those rules or laws. Copyright infringement (distributing
> TTF/OTF files without a proper license) is already punishable by law.

Christopher Slye's post yesterday about this was spot on.

> However, if the new format has some other merit than "security" or
> "protection", then it may be better than plain TTF/OTF.

.webfont does more than "protection." It has support for compression,  
support for different font formats, clear license info for users, etc.


Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 11:56:41 UTC