<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Make font installation optional" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91886#c6">Comment # 6</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Make font installation optional" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91886">bug 91886</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:mikekaganski@hotmail.com" title="Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@hotmail.com>"> Mike Kaganski</a> <pre>(In reply to Heiko Tietze from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=91886#c5">comment #5</a>) > Which is exactly my argument against shipping fonts that users cannot get > rid of. How cannot they get rid of them? > All those who don't care about compatibility, use own templates, > don't want the Noto overkill... So the punch line should have been "Let's drop Noto"? > IMHO the extension solution gives users more freedom. Fonts-as-extensions is WRONG. You create a font (re)packaging and (re)distribution infrastructure, where each of those fonts is not created here. An extension is a creation of its author; it might include something from outside, but its essence is what is unique in it. A font-as-extension is just repackaging someone other's work. With possible licensing problems - much more severe than with current extensions, where each of them has very high chance to be intellectual property of those who upload them. And then - you install such an extension, but - suddenly users *are* able to delete installed fonts using OS features, that are not synchronized with your extension mechanism. And then you have extensions that are easily broken from outside. My take is PLEASE NO FONTS AS EXTENSIONS.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>