- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:37:41 -0700
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jun 23, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Brad Kemper wrote: >> A paper clip used as a substitute for a padlock might fit some legal >> definition of protection I suppose, but practically speaking its not >> going to do much at all from keeping a burglar from breaking into >> your >> home. It might possible convey the intent of not wanting unauthorized >> people to open the door though. That's really about all you can hope >> for from EOT "protection". > > And if that's enough for font vendors, and they're happy to license > the use if you put a paperclip on the door, what's wrong with > putting a paperclip on the door? Nothing at all. I am just suggesting that they will see more wide- spread adoption if they don't require a special format of paperclip, but use the ones that are already available, and that can do this part of the job just as well. > At any rate, I don't think it's a paperclip. It's a "no > trespassing" sign. Or a "welcome all visitors" sign, or a "no > soliciting" sign, depending on usage. Those are important, IMO. Agreed. It is more of a indication of clear intent of level of sharability than it is a "protection". That was my point, and was also what someone from Monotype indicated was the important thing, not "protection". As "protection" either method (using EOT or using changed font names, etc.) is weak, but does satisfy the goal of communicating the usage restrictions and discouraging accidental violations of the license.
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 16:38:23 UTC