Looks like the FAQ (more liberal than the license) has been pulled... http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/legal/pdfs/FAQdown.html

However there are/were different rules with Adobe Originals vs the Monotype, ITC and Linotype fonts they resell. I would go direct to Monotype for a web font version of ITC Franklin Gothic, or a better Franklin on webtype.com http://www.webtype.com/store/search/?q=franklin

Here's an unpulled version... http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/ff_faq.html

We also have a Web Font Licensing FAQ link on the main Typblography page.

Thanks Ken, that's a useful link. The sifr/cufon section implies that Adobe owned fonts can be embedded in Flash apps. Do you have a pointer where Flash embedding is called out as approved?

Yep, that's the one. Thanks, Sii.

Reading Monotype EULA -

12. You may electronically distribute Font Software embedded in a "Personal or Internal Business Use" document (that is, a document other than a "Commercial Product" as defined herein) only when the Font Software embedded in such document (i) is in a static graphic image (for example, a "gif") or an embedded electronic document, and (ii) is distributed in a secure format that permits only the viewing and printing (and not the editing, altering, enhancing, or modifying) of such static graphic image or embedded document.

Technically the HTML page with @font-face embedding falls under (ii) as it does not really permit "editing, altering, enhancing, or modifying". Sure one can save the page and then edit it as a text file, but exactly the same applies to PDFs and Flash applets, the use of both of which appear to be allowed.

The Webtype selection seems odd - there's light and medium, but no regular weights. It is also a service. The same goes for Monotype's, though they do have a better selection including Trade Gothic Next and News Gothic in all weights and styles.

Ken, thank you. Very useful link indeed.

(edit) Hmmm... how do I tell if a font owned by Adobe or not? For example, is this one "Adobe owned"?

Your interpretation of "ii" seems like a stretch. I don't think anyone considers HTML a "secure format".

I think the "Adobe owned" may be explained here... http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/info/embedding.html

Oh, I understand it's a stretch :) However the meaning of "secure" varies depending on whom one asks, so the only unambiguous way to read (ii) is to take it as an actual definition of "secure". If something does not permit "editing, altering, enhancing, or modifying" of the document, then it is "secure". And HTML is "secure" under that definition.

And I'm guessing you meant to link to http://www.adobe.com/type/embedding.html, which basically says "open the font file and look at the foundry info". Hardly practical.

>And HTML is "secure" under that definition.

I suppose we'll let the lawyers work this one out. :-)

Good news, Sii: the lawyers have worked it out!

I was looking at the Google Books In-Browser Reader yesterday which has select/copy/paste and save disabled and, in general, uses every obfuscation trick in the book.
It would be difficult not to deem it "secure". I think it clearly falls under that license.
I'm just surprised the license doesn't out and out forbid @font-face because @font-face is linking, not embedding, even though Microsoft keeps calling it embedding but as you've told me, it's actually distribution.

embedding vs. linking is more of a semantics issue.