On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir < Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:24 PM Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir < > Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: > >> >> However, my prior comment was not rhetorical! The Web developer's choice >> of fonts should not in any way be affected by the technology we are >> developing - he should be free to choose any font (free, commercial, >> proprietary, etc.) that satisfies his needs. >> > > No way. If a Web developer insists on using fonts from Foundry X, but > Foundry X won't allow Web use unless browsers implement TCPA-style > down-to-the-metal DRM which also happens to be covered by royalty-licensed > patents --- too bad for the Web developer and Foundry X. > > Are you saying that web developers can't use Monotype's hot metal type > either? :-) > We still have plenty of this stuff around, is anyone interested? > > On a serious note - I thought we all agreed to be reasonable. > > That *is* being reasonable. It's a necessary qualification. We *won't* tolerate intrusive DRM measures like that, so my choice of fonts is effectively limited by how reasonable the foundry is. We're interested in coming up with reasonable solutions here, but ultimately it is up to the content producer to not make unreasonable demands. (On a less serious but still actually serious note, how much for hot metal type? I'm interested in owning some of that purely for myself. ^_^) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 23:47:28 UTC