<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-03-10" time="16:00:20
+0000">
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Greg Grossmeier
<greg(a)wikimedia.org> 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 |