On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erwin Dokter <[email protected]> wrote: > This is completly a non-issue. CSS Font stacks merely *refer* to a font > already installed (and paid for) on a reader's computer. There are no legal > issues arising form this whatsoever.
You missed the point. The issue is ideological, not legal. > When it comes to selecting fonts, it is natural in web design to first refer > to the most commonly installed fonts available. If you were to specify only > free fonts, they would have no effect on the 99% of our reader's computers, > because they don't have those font installed to begin with. In short, > preferring free fonts in a font stack is utterly pointless. Surely it's closer to 98%.[1] ;( Actually, I've seen plenty of sites that specify fonts with lesser expected penetration first, usually fonts distributed with Mac OSes but not Windows. The drawback to specifying the non-free font first is that those of us who have both still get the non-free font. [1]: Non-Android Linux has a bit over 2%, according to http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
