- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:16:22 -0700
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Cc: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, www-style@w3.org
On May 1, 2008, at 2:33 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/5/1 David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>: >> >> Patrick Garies wrote: >>> >>> This could be dealt with by adding a shareability flag and/or domain >>> white‐listing mechanism to CSS3 Web Fonts that could prevent a >>> Web font from >>> being shared indirectly. >> >> That's what EOT fonts already do, and it is that model that people >> are >> rejecting in this thread. A > >> EOT basically is a domain whitelisting wrapper. > > I think it is dramatically more than that; because of the encryption, > EOT is an "effective technological measure" under any applicable law > fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty > adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or > restricting circumvention of such measures. Is a trivial encryption algorithm like XOR with 0x50 really an "effective technological measure"? It has the strength of rot13, and now is publicly specified in a W3C Member Submission. Is the C ^ operator now a "circumvention device"? Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 00:17:01 UTC