Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

Thomas Phinney wrote:
> But I still consider this a side issue. Web designers want to be able to use retail fonts, and they want to be able to use most any font. Ergo, a solution which doesn't make font vendors happy won't make web designers happy either.

I agree. If the consequence will be that instead of a handful fonts now
(Verdana, Georgia, Trebuchet, Arial etc.) the web designers will be able
to use maybe 3 or 4 times as much, tops (that is, only the ones that are
freely licensed), then the whole issue is not worth the effort.

Even for alphabets/writing systems that do not yet have lots of fonts
available, it is the Web that can contribute to the typographic
development of those scripts — but IMO only if there are reasonable
revenue opportunities associated with it. Right now, making Indic or
Arabic fonts does not offer huge commercial prospects because of the
widespread piracy. But web fonts, if done right, can offer some
typographic talent in those countries some career paths and
opportunities that they would otherwise not follow.

This is the major issue that some of the "free software" proponents seem
to forget: very often, there is no choice between so-called "will there
be free software" and "will there be proprietary software". Instead, the
choice is "will there be software at all" or "will there be no software
at all".

If there is a chance that a larger part of the human society worldwide
can read and write their own language on the internet, all stakeholders
should sort their priorities and look for a model that will give those
people that chance under _any_ model.

Where I come from, freedom for people should come first _before_ the
freedom for other things (like software or capital).



Adam Twardoch
| Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType
| | |

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or
insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
(Hunter S. Thompson)

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 18:30:53 UTC