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

Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:21:15 -0700
CC: <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D65B337D-E100-4F82-8208-4615C5740E5E@adobe.com>
To: "rfink@readableweb.com" <rfink@readableweb.com>
Rich, I don't agree with you on this. It's really something for the lawyers to figure out (IANAL), but my opinion is that a tool that calls this out is doing the right thing. Since the license agreement is made between the foundry and the end user, the tool is simply reminding the end user to be conscious of it.

I don't think it's any great revelation that software can be used to do illegal things, so putting a pop-up in a tool that says, essentially, "Use this software legally," is helpful.

And I don't see much similarity in the LimeWire case you mentioned, actually. A file sharing service with search capabilities, which flourishes largely because of the illegal file sharing it enables, is a far cry from a tool that converts files to WOFF format.


On May 14, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Richard Fink wrote:

> In the two most commonly used online conversion tools I'm aware of, Font Squirrel's @Font-Face Generator and Cufón, the user is required to attest that they have the right to do the font conversions by checking a box next to the statement:
>     "Yes, the fonts I'm uploading are legally eligible for web embedding"
> Now, you probably think this is a good thing.
> I don't.
> Because that statement is, essentially, an admission that the tool *can* be used for fonts that are *not* eligible for web embedding.
> If some irate font producer(s) were to decide that the majority of people using that online tool are a bunch of lying pirates and they were to take such a site to task for contributory infringement or inducement to infringe, a good part of their lawyer's work has already been done for them by the site itself. The site has already admitted that it will allow anybody, with only the simple click of a checkbox, to convert fonts whether they are "legally eligible" or not. And I'm sure it would be argued it's inducement to infringe because a paltry checkbox is all the enforcement there is.
> No, it's better to have nothing.
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 22:39:26 UTC

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