4 ms·
My point is, if you have a desktop license (which is fine to use in print) you'll be "redistributing" it in much the same way as a website which uses @font-face
by lol768 7y ago
My point is, if you have a desktop license (which is fine to use in print) you'll be "redistributing" it in much the same way as a website which uses @font-face and serves you the font files.
- roywiggins 7y agoWell the difference is that the license will actually say that you can embed the font in documents you produce. As far as the license is concerned, emailing a document with the font embedded is a different thing from zipping the bare font and sharing it on BitTorrent is a different thing from embedding it on a webpage. You can burn a CD with your documents on it and share it, you can't burn a CD with a bunch of bare font files and share that. Even if the same exact bits end up written to the CD in both cases. The technicalities, as far as the license is concerned, are not really the point. It's not about whether you're physically sending the bits of the font over the wire, but the whole context in which you're doing it.