- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:12:17 -0700
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Jun 22, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> For example, the Monotype EULA that permits .eot >> use on a web server could also permit .otf use on a web server >> provided the >> font is internally renamed along the lines John suggested. That >> would (it >> seems to me) serve as a pretty clear "No Trespassing" sign, too, >> and would >> allow sites to be both IE-compatible and FF/Opera/...-compatible in >> their >> font deployment. Used in this way, direct linking to .otf files >> need not be >> suitable *only* for free fonts. > > However, this would allow anyone to copy the font over to their domain > and have it work on their site (not necessarily knowing that this > violates its license terms). How could anyone copy a font who name is "This font licensed for use by XYZ Corp only" and not know that they were violating license terms (assuming they didn't represent XYZ Corp)? If the font requires some custom @font-face rules in the CSS file in order to work well, then that block of CSS could also contain a comment explaining the restriction further, along with a sentence that says, "this text comment block must be included with the @font-face rule, unedited, as part of the license requirement." Furthermore, the single font could be split into two fonts: one with the vowels, odd numbers, and punctuation, and the other with the consonants and even numbers, and then brought together via @font-face unicode ranges and a font-family stack. This would make it pretty hard to accidentally copy it to another site and have it work, without first understanding that they are not supposed to. And it would make it pretty difficult to use in other applications that do not have @font-face rules.
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 06:12:57 UTC