- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:55:42 +0200
- To: Sergey Malkin <sergeym@microsoft.com>
- CC: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 8:09:22 PM, Sergey wrote: SM> For me, new definition is as confusing as definition of SM> "document" we had problems with before. I would leave all this to SM> EULA language and not try to formalize it. I agree with that. The final arbiter has to be the actual license agreement between the organisation or individual creating the font and the organisation or individual using it on the Web. Neither the woff-creating software, nor the Web server, nor the browser or other Web client, should be involved in policing, or rather attempting to police on the basis of inadequate information, whether the font is being used within the terms of the license. That is a legal matter, not a technical one, and is entirely between the two organisations involved (or, if they disagree, their respective lawyers). If PDF embedding applications have settled on a machine-readable interpretation of that license for PDF embedding then fine, but a) that is a whole different case from Web use b) we shouldn't muddy the waters there by redefining or adding bits If the WOFF specification has to say anything about the embedding bits, it should solely be to clarify that these do not apply to Web usage. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 17:56:12 UTC