<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@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.