W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:32:51 +0100
Cc: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <06661EF6-8497-46BC-B1F2-C0C82E1F99FC@gmail.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
On 11 May 2010, at 19:27, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:

> However, the question that I would like to have answered in the first place is regarding the current definition of "Restricted License Embedding". I always understood it to be the only one that clearly and unambiguously limits the use of a font to the licensed copy you have installed locally, with no embedding or any kind of font data exchange allowed.

But as I read it, the "Restricted License Embedding" bit does not actually "limit the use" as suggested here. From the OT spec:

"Fonts that have only this bit set must not be modified, embedded or exchanged in any manner without first obtaining permission of the legal owner."

which means that you have to refer to the license, EULA, or some other source of information to determine whether the legal owner has given permission for whatever kind of font data exchange or other use you want to do. All the bit says is that such permission is required; it does nothing to help tools determine whether the user has in fact obtained it.

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 21:34:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:34 UTC