- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:36:04 +0000
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
>From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf >Of John Hudson >We do need to be clear that the minimal protections at the format level >being discussed are not viable protections of font IP against any kind >of deliberate misuse. I know Tal and Erik have been very clear in >communicating this to our type design colleagues, and I think everyone >understands that we're not getting anything that would even approach >enabling a DRM business model for font licensing. > >We also need to be clear that insofar as honest users do not want to >break license agreements and, in the case of corporate users, have much >to risk if they do break license agreements, the minimal protections >against casual misuse protect the user as much or more than they protect >the font data. > > >What the non-IE browser makers have indicated that they do not want is >technical protections of a kind that would require them to enforce >anything and potentially expose them to DMCA lawsuits. Such protections >are not on the table. > >An attempt to interpret the clearly stated position of the browser >makers to imply that *any* kind of protection at all is anathema and >'will not fly', is unsupportable. The browser makers have already >indicated what kinds of protections they would be willing to accept in a >web font format. There is no fantasy 'architectural board' that dictates >what will and will not be permitted on abstract principles. There are >parties with stakes in the game who need to negotiate consensual >solutions. Which is what we are gradually doing. I echo John's sentiment. One additional comment: same-origin policy with CORS override has already shipped for webfonts with Firefox 3.5. As of yet I see no reason to argue with the decision or the implementation choice. Neither do the font vendors I have talked to as it gives them by default what used to require extra steps with EOT rootstrings, all done in a standards way. I am positive we have enough work to do here without looking for extra 'hair-splitting', let alone 'court proceedings' ! So while there is most definitely value in ensuring we all understand what level of 'protection' this or that proposal entails, I am happy to let others debate the philosophical suitability of CORS after the ship has actually sailed.
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 02:36:52 UTC