<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-03-10" time="16:00:20 +0000"> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Greg Grossmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Any concious choice to promote non-Free *anything* is a choice we must > > make with eyes wide open. Discussion about the Free-ness of our software > > (and what that software relies on/promotes) is valid in our community. > > It isn't easier than ignoring those aspects. But it's the right thing to > > do. Saying that our ideals about Free Software are "irrational" only > > makes the Design team sound out of touch. > > > > This is the sticking point. You've basically admitted that the problem is > the *possible* *appearance* that we're "promoting" unfree software. Not > that we're actually depending on or delivering unfree software.
Not possible. Real. We are listing non-free fonts in our CSS. Full stop. My argument is that doing that matters. It's not irrational. > The idea that we're somehow widely and officially promoting unfree software > here is frankly a gut reaction that is not supported in fact. Users will > need to inspect our CSS in order to even view the font settings. Most users > do not know how to do this. For those that do (i.e. programmers), they > should know well enough that CSS means we are not delivering un-free > software, but rather doing what almost every site without webfonts does. > That is: listing a font stack that is appropriate for users of many > platforms, free and unfree, mobile and desktop. ...that only benefits Apple OS users. Let's be clear on that point, please. -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | _______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
