On Apr 8, 10:51 pm, fantasai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David E. Ross wrote: > > > Then, there is the fact that W3C's CSS Working Group has not yet > > resolved certain issues relating to its Web Fonts specification. For > > example, there seems to be a dispute as to whether all font files will > > be allowed or only .eot files. With limited resources, the Mozilla > > organizations need to be careful about putting effort into implementing > > something that will then have to be revised. > > Font formats were indeed discussed in the CSSWG (and I can't say why atm),
Thanks for clarifying this, and I understand why you can't say why: As a newbie to the way the W3C Working Groups work, this weekend I've been unpleasantly surprised at how secretive they are :-( > but what format is used for fonts is out-of-scope for CSS. > > CSS is external-resource-format-agnostic. It doesn't require PNG or JPEG > or GIF for images, and it doesn't require EOT or TTF or anything else for > fonts. I'm very happy to have this confirmed! :-) > Format requirements are decided by the industry. E.g. printers have > embraced JPEG but not GIF and are working towards adding PNG to the > "reliably supported" list; web browsers all support GIF, JPEG, and PNG, > and are working towards adding SVG to the "reliably supported" list. Font > formats will likely be the same situation, with TTF and EOT being the main > contenders here. > ... > The legal issues wouldn't be about @font-face's syntax and semantics. > They'd be about whether the browser makers are liable for using fonts > for which the license doesn't allow embedding. That is, font makers > would be suing, not whoever invented @font-face, and they'd most likely > be suing under copyright infringement, not under patent infringement. Okay, that's a useful insight for me. Could USA font developers try to sue USA browser developers who add the @font-face feature for copyright infringement? The browser developers don't distribute fonts and infringe copyright themselves, so not directly, no. But they might be said to _contribute_ to the copyright infringement that web publishers and web surfers are expected to engage in by that feature being available. There is a WIPO liability for "_contributory_ copyright infringement - http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID268 briefly explains.But this seems unlikely to me because in the Betamax case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios - the court said: "[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial non-infringing uses." There are substantial amounts of freely redistributable fonts, so a browser developer would not be guilty of contributory copyright infringement for implementing @font-face; within a few weeks of Safari 3.1 shipping the feature, it is being used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. For example, in the font developer forum Typophile, professional font developer Ralf Herrmann posted at http://www.typophile.com/node/43312 "To come back to the dilemma of not having fonts worth embedding: We decided to do something about it: http://www.fonts.info/info/press/free-fonts-for-font-face-embedding.htm ... check out the demo page: http://www.fonts.info/info/press/font-face-embedding-demo.htm ... http://es-de-we.net/ [is] a weblog using the creative commons font "Vollkorn" for headlines ... http://opentype.info/blog/ [is] my weblog using Graublau Sans Web for headlines." However, if browser developers _promote_ the infringing uses of their software, they may be liable for contributory copyright infringement. This was established in the recent Grokster case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd. - when the court stated "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." For example, right now Apple is very much acting like Grokster, since its website at www.apple.com/safari currently says: "With CSS3 web fonts in Safari 3.1, web designers can go beyond web-safe fonts and use any font they want to create stunning new websites using standards- based technology. Safari automatically recognizes websites that use custom fonts and downloads them as they're needed." (Screenshot of this at http://typophile.com/files/Capture_3793.JPG if Apple changes this.) But when Mozilla implements @font-face and ensures it notes on all documentation and marketing of the feature that users and publishers must be careful to only use fonts that they are authorised to redistribute, it has a fair defence against such a lawsuit. Now, when you say, > for which the license doesn't allow embedding I don't think a contractual dispute between a web publisher and a font developer for breaking the contractual license agreement would effect a browser developer. But I think if the font format has DRM information to disallow embedding, that could make browser developers - especially free software browser developers - liable under the DMCA/EUCD. If a browser developer's implementation of @font-face ignores the "embedding" DRM bits, they are especially at risk, I'd say. Sadly, TrueType is a DRM format with such nasty features. And Apple seem to be doing this too! "I did a little test and found that Safari 3.1 does not honor embedding bits. I created a test TrueType font with embedding set to the most restrictive setting and the Safari happily displayed the font anyway. Perhaps Apple does not consider such fonts to be embedded." - Mark Simonson, http://www.typophile.com/node/43312 The DRM in TrueType files is really intended for PDF files; @font-face is _redistribution_ of fonts, not _embedding_ them, so the DRM in TTF isn't really appropriate anyway. Microsoft created a stronger DRM font format called "Embedded Open Type" and, although the relevant CSS WG discussion has happened in secret, I believe that Microsoft tried to pressure the W3C to adopt this format as the only one valid for @font-face, because http://www.rogerblack.com/blog/getting_in_bed_with_type said on 2007-05-15, "Microsoft is ready to propose to the World Wide Web Consortium (the W3C) that they adopt the MS Embedded Open Type format for _all browsers and platforms._" (emphasis mine) Thankfully, forcing EOT on people appears to have fully failed at the W3C level because as you say, "format requirements are decided by the industry." It seems Microsoft and Adobe are trying behind closed doors to bully 'the industry' to only supporting EOT - with threats of a lawsuit for inducing contributory copyright infringement if they implement or continue to support any other formats. Would such a threat have any basis? I don't think so; quoting Wikipedia's Grokster page, it was "asserted that [Grokster's] refusal to incorporate protocols that would filter copyrighted materials from the file-sharing network constitutes an intent to promote copyright infringement. In Footnote 12, however, Justice Souter notes that "...in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too close to the Sony safe harbor." These kinds of substantial non-infringing uses will only get more and more widespread, and a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely by a browser supporting non-DRM font formats. So patent threats and copyright threats seem total bullshit to me. I speculate that David Hyatt and his bosses at Apple, who are privvy to the secret W3C CSS Working Group discussions, share this assessment since they have implemented and shipped @font-face with marketing flare and disregard for TrueType DRM. If anyone knows anyone capable of implementing @font-face in Gecko for all 3 major platforms, I have the money to fund full time development of this substantial feature. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this with me! Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
