RE: Double standards in restrictions on downloadable fonts

As this is a technical issue, I'm moving it to the public list in line 
with the group's policy of taking technical matters to the public list.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> The embedding bits are not the sole guide for how a font may be used. 
> Please refer to the EULA that you agree to when purchasing the font or 
> obtaining the software from the font maker.

The last time EULAs came up in this discussion, you mentioned that the 
Vista EULA absolutely did not allow for redistribution of fonts, yet at 
the same time you argued that it allowed for redistribution of fonts as 
EOT fonts and embedded in documents.

As it happens, you never replied to my e-mail actually pointing to the 
actual text of the license:

...but even worse, now you are arguing that the very same EULAs not only 
_do_ allow for redistribution of these TTF fonts, but they allow the exact 
same online distribution as was previously suggested for IE, which you 
said you would never be able to implement as it violated your EULAs!

I have to admit to being extremely confused at this point as to exactly 
what Microsoft's position on font distribution actually is. I fully 
understand why it has been suggested that Microsoft may in fact be purely 
acting in a manner to slow down the group and the development of the CSS 
platform -- it seems easy to come to the conclusion that you change your 
arguments every other month to counter whatever proposal is put forward.

I think it would help greatly if we could move forward at this point by 
simply dropping the whole EOT pseudo-DRM idea entirely, and agree that 
linking to TTFs is what all browsers should support.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 07:30:19 UTC