RE: The unmentionable

 From: Thomas Lord []
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:19 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: John Hudson;
> Subject: RE: The unmentionable
> Firefox does not "[use] same-origin [or] CORS as
> a lightweight form of license restriction."

So what ? If a font EULA wants to suggest using
same-origin/CORS to address hot-linking scenarios,
why does it need to be in a standard ? And why should
such licensing be the only motive to require its
implementation ?

Unless you're really saying Mozilla's motivation to use
same-origin/CORS was wrong ? If their implementation choice
is valid, why wouldn't it also be valid for non-raw fonts ?

Why wouldn't a web font standard require same-origin/CORS
for the exact reason Mozilla implemented it, regardless
of what anyone else thinks it means for the protection of
their IP ? Should we not do something for a valid reason A
because other people also want it for some unrelated reason B
that we can't standardize ? Why ?

And if font creators are happy with that requirement's side-effect
in terms of reducing the exposure of their product, and have
their license language recommend using the exact feature the
standard requires, what is the problem ? Who/what is hurt or broken ?

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 21:17:07 UTC