4 ms·

I found this part interesting: > Google Fonts can also be used by the defendant without a connection to a Google server is established and the IP address of th

I found this part interesting: > Google Fonts can also be used by the defendant without a connection to a Google server is established and the IP address of the website user is transmitted to Google So they're saying that because a user is allowed to self host the fonts, they should (and presumably then there is no legitimate reason anymore to 'transmit the IP address to google' ?) Would Google Fonts then be in the clear if they deny you the right to selfhost so that the only way to use it is letting users fetch them from Google?

ceejayoz 5y ago
I very much doubt it; in that case, the site in question should use another font.
kuschku 5y ago
You could also just proxy + cache the requests.
- antsar 5y ago
  Why waste bandwidth requesting the same file? I guess you could cache it “indefinitely”, but that’s functionally the same as just hosting it..
  - mikojan 5y ago
    For the same reason you chose to use a CDN instead of self-hosting in the first place. It takes away a lot of the complexity. I'm not proxy'ing and HTTP caching typefaces but I used to URL-import JavaScript packages from a CDN. Availability as well as response latency at times were abysmal. I didn't want to give up on the comfort though. Now I'm just routing and HTTP caching requests to cdn.my-website.com to cdn.that-popular-provider.com Availability is tied to the my-website.com's availability - which is great. And response latency went way down. And I didn't have to compromise on just dropping arbitrary JavaScript with arbitrary dependencies on the server without going through all the node and npm hassle first. It's awesome.
tlarkworthy 5y ago
So if you website is hosted by Github pages (US), then that is ok because you can't self host?
magicalist 5y ago
> Would Google Fonts then be in the clear if they deny you the right to selfhost so that the only way to use it is letting users fetch them from Google? Google Fonts have always[1] used open source licenses, so you've always been able to self host. A change in the fonts API can't revoke that license. [1] http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/05/introducing-google-font-api-google-font.html http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/05/introducing-google-fo...
kmeisthax 5y ago
So, the reason why you can selfhost is because Google Fonts is a repository of FOSS fonts[0]. Google can't strip away the open licensing to evade GDPR, because you can't actually cancel those licenses. They have no termination provision and allow redistribution, so it would still be possible to selfhost even if Google stripped the license. The courts would view the stripping of Free licensing on free fonts to be a subterfuge, and strike it down. Furthermore, if they did this, it would almost certainly violate SIL Open Font License and GPL+FE[1], as they both have copyleft provisions that forbid restrictive sublicensing and require derivative works to be made under the same license. If we were talking about Adobe Fonts[2], which exists to license proprietary fonts, then the above wouldn't apply and you might have an argument. However, there is no particular reason why website developers could negotiate a self-hosting license for more money. If it's not a legitimate purpose under GDPR to use Google Fonts to save money on hosting costs, then it's probably not a legitimate purpose to use Adobe Fonts to save money on licensing costs. The correct way for this to be fixed is not to evade GDPR; it's to get Congress to embrace it. Alternatively, someone in the EU with no ties to America[3] could host their own font service and negotiate licenses for premium font usage... but that's more of an interim solution than a long-term fix. [0] I will only be talking about "font software" - i.e. the copyrightable aspects of the font files we use to render fonts on a computer. Font designs themselves are subject matter for patents, not copyrights. [1] GPL with a clause clarifying that embedding the font into a document does not require putting the document under GPL. [2] I had to stop myself from calling them TypeKit still [3] The lynch-pin of Schrems II is the fact that Americans can be compelled by US intelligence agencies to collect EU data they have access to, so it needs to be 100% America-free.
horsawlarway 5y ago
The only real way they could do that would be to change the licensing terms (since the font has to be available for download either way, and if it's available you can always download it and then re-host yourself). I would assume the courts would (correctly - IMO) treat that as a bad-faith effort on the part of Google, and proceed with that in mind. It would likely lead to banning the use of Google fonts entirely.

ceejayoz 5y ago

I very much doubt it; in that case, the site in question should use another font.

kuschku 5y ago

You could also just proxy + cache the requests.

antsar 5y ago
Why waste bandwidth requesting the same file? I guess you could cache it “indefinitely”, but that’s functionally the same as just hosting it..
- mikojan 5y ago
  For the same reason you chose to use a CDN instead of self-hosting in the first place. It takes away a lot of the complexity. I'm not proxy'ing and HTTP caching typefaces but I used to URL-import JavaScript packages from a CDN. Availability as well as response latency at times were abysmal. I didn't want to give up on the comfort though. Now I'm just routing and HTTP caching requests to cdn.my-website.com to cdn.that-popular-provider.com Availability is tied to the my-website.com's availability - which is great. And response latency went way down. And I didn't have to compromise on just dropping arbitrary JavaScript with arbitrary dependencies on the server without going through all the node and npm hassle first. It's awesome.

tlarkworthy 5y ago

So if you website is hosted by Github pages (US), then that is ok because you can't self host?

magicalist 5y ago

> Would Google Fonts then be in the clear if they deny you the right to selfhost so that the only way to use it is letting users fetch them from Google? Google Fonts have always[1] used open source licenses, so you've always been able to self host. A change in the fonts API can't revoke that license. [1] http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/05/introducing-google-font-api-google-font.html http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/05/introducing-google-fo...

kmeisthax 5y ago

So, the reason why you can selfhost is because Google Fonts is a repository of FOSS fonts[0]. Google can't strip away the open licensing to evade GDPR, because you can't actually cancel those licenses. They have no termination provision and allow redistribution, so it would still be possible to selfhost even if Google stripped the license. The courts would view the stripping of Free licensing on free fonts to be a subterfuge, and strike it down. Furthermore, if they did this, it would almost certainly violate SIL Open Font License and GPL+FE[1], as they both have copyleft provisions that forbid restrictive sublicensing and require derivative works to be made under the same license. If we were talking about Adobe Fonts[2], which exists to license proprietary fonts, then the above wouldn't apply and you might have an argument. However, there is no particular reason why website developers could negotiate a self-hosting license for more money. If it's not a legitimate purpose under GDPR to use Google Fonts to save money on hosting costs, then it's probably not a legitimate purpose to use Adobe Fonts to save money on licensing costs. The correct way for this to be fixed is not to evade GDPR; it's to get Congress to embrace it. Alternatively, someone in the EU with no ties to America[3] could host their own font service and negotiate licenses for premium font usage... but that's more of an interim solution than a long-term fix. [0] I will only be talking about "font software" - i.e. the copyrightable aspects of the font files we use to render fonts on a computer. Font designs themselves are subject matter for patents, not copyrights. [1] GPL with a clause clarifying that embedding the font into a document does not require putting the document under GPL. [2] I had to stop myself from calling them TypeKit still [3] The lynch-pin of Schrems II is the fact that Americans can be compelled by US intelligence agencies to collect EU data they have access to, so it needs to be 100% America-free.

horsawlarway 5y ago

The only real way they could do that would be to change the licensing terms (since the font has to be available for download either way, and if it's available you can always download it and then re-host yourself). I would assume the courts would (correctly - IMO) treat that as a bad-faith effort on the part of Google, and proceed with that in mind. It would likely lead to banning the use of Google fonts entirely.