3 ms·
ianal, but I think CDNs would not be affected by the ruling, since they serve an important function. Google Fonts was deemed illegal here since it's not necessa
by luplex 5y ago
ianal, but I think CDNs would not be affected by the ruling, since they serve an important function.
Google Fonts was deemed illegal here since it's not necessary and you can easily provide a font in a privacy-preserving way.
- charcircuit 5y agoGoogle Fonts is a CDN. The *C*ontent they *D*eliver are fonts.
- elevader 5y agoNot a lawyer as well but I'm not sure about this. Let's use the "jQuery served by a CDN" example here: You can easily argue that using jQuery is necessary for your site to function but there is no real benefit to the user by doing this with a CDN when you could just ship jQuery from your own server. AFAIK the benefit of CDNs is largely nullified nowadays by browsers using a different cache for each primary domain anyways, so you can't even really point out a potential benefit for the user (faster load times) here.