- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:46:17 +0000
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- CC: Gustavo Ferreira <gustavo.ferreira@hipertipo.net>, www-style@w3.org
Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> Plus, conversion
> of original font to SVG would in general be considered a production of
> derivative work that is expressly forbidden by many (if not all) font
> licenses.
Much as I am (in general) on your side in this debate,
I do think that that last statement is related to one
of the prime causes of opposition to font DRM. If
I buy the TrueType version of Linotype Times-Roman,
should I really need to buy another licence if one
of my applications requires instead that the font
be in Type-1 format ? I believe not, just as I
believe that I have every right to save a commercial
DVD in DixV format /for my own personal use/,
regardless of any copy-protection ("DRM") that the
DVD producers have inserted to protect against
such "illicit" activity. This is at the heart
of the defence by the authors of DVDshrink and
similar software : such software is specifically
intended to allow owners to make personal backups
in a more compact format, and is /not/ intended to
allow illegal copies to be made and distributed.
Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 17:47:02 UTC