Sorry, I didn’t explain myself well. What I meant to say was the following:
If the license (commonly an EULA ) has an exhaustive and restricted list of the uses you can give to a thing (in this case, the font). Then, the license is prohibiting any other use of the font that it’s not contemplated in it.
But, for example, if the license has a list of some uses you can’t give to the thing, and allows you to give it any other use while and only if you respect some therms. Then you aren’t obliged to suppose that not categorized uses are ilegal (again, only if those therms are respected).
What I wanted to say is that your generalization (“assume the license does not permit it “) isn’t always true, you have to take a look at each case. I know you intended it to be as a recommendation, and it would be the best rule to apply if you don’t want to have any legal problems. But you know, a lot of people who will read this don’t have any knowledge about the law (as a discipline) so I believe it would be better not to make this kind of generalizations because they can confuse or lead to misunderstandings.
@ipad, yes, you can redistribute a thing without explicit permission, it only depends on the license, for example a copyleft one can allow you to do it (note that I never mentioned selling in my first post ;)).
If the license doesn’t specify restrictions for your intended use, assume the license does not permit it and get explicit permission directly from the author first.I don’t know much about your country’s legislation, but here in Argentina our Constitution say’s that everything that is not prohibited by law is legal. And the same applies for contracts and licenses. So you don’t have to assume restrictions the font’s license doesn’t specify.
Again, I don’t know your legislation and the jurisprudence of your country, so I’d like to know really why you said that.
The rest of the post is very interesting, I haven’t heard about the EOT technology. I have to try @font-face one of these days…