Re: EOT-Lite File Format

John Daggett wrote:

>> Aha. So the concern is not font vendors requiring rootstrings per se,
>> but authors preferring rootstrings as a method to meet more generally
>> phrased EULA requirements. Interesting.

> Not sure how you deduced this point. 

Rob gave reasons why he thinks 'rootstrings would more attractive to 
authors than Referer checking.'

I'm trying to make sense of why this is a concern, given that we're 
discussing formats that don't contain rootstrings and don't require 
browsers to take any action regarding URL data.

His comment about rootstrings being more attractive *to authors* than 
referer checking seemed to open a brief window on the nature of the 
concern. But perhaps I misunderstood the emphasis in my effort to latch 
onto something that might make this concern intelligible to me.

 > both affect how EULAs are written in strange and interesting ways.

Yes, the reality of the format and how it is implemented affects how 
EULAs are written. That is true of pretty much any technology involving 
licensed content. And this is what I am saying: font makers who want to 
license fonts for use with a given format will write EULAs that enable 
authors to use their fonts in the format as specified and implemented. 
We've been doing this with every font format that's come along in the 
past three decades. It is typically the case, at least for fonts, that 
the format affects the EULA *not the other way round*.

This is why concerns about the implications of as-yet-unwritten EULAs 
for the format seem strange to me, and probably to my colleagues. Its 

> I think you mean "to check whether an unlicensed font is being served". 
> You don't need any special URL data in the wrapper or font data to check
> for cross-site usage.  You would need it if you want to assure that
> siteA is not serving fonts licensed to siteB.

Yes. That is what I meant.


Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 03:34:36 UTC