- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:59:04 +0200
- To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, 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>
On Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 11:32:51 PM, Jonathan wrote: JK> 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. JK> But as I read it, the "Restricted License Embedding" bit does not JK> actually "limit the use" as suggested here. From the OT spec: JK> "Fonts that have only this bit set must not be modified, embedded JK> or exchanged in any manner without first obtaining permission of the legal owner." So, how does a tool know whether such permission has been obtained, just by reading that bit? JK> which means that you have to refer to the license, EULA, or some JK> other source of information to determine whether the legal owner JK> has given permission for whatever kind of font data exchange or JK> other use you want to do. Right. JK> All the bit says is that such permission JK> is required; it does nothing to help tools determine whether the user has in fact obtained it. Exactly -- 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 17:59:39 UTC