W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:59:59 -0700
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249009199.6257.200.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:44 -0400, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> On Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:10 PM Thomas Lord wrote:
> > 
> > > > If EOT-lite becomes the recommendation, is the
> > > > previously discussed patent de-encumberence of MTX
> > > > included in the deal?
> > 
> > > No, as currently defined EOT-Lite does not include MTX compression.
> > 
> > That's something that will come up as things move
> > forward.  I think that's a problem.  Can we hear
> > from Monotype on that?  Maybe they wouldn't mind
> > if MTX patents became safe to implement if EOT-lite
> > is adopted.  Otherwise, we wind up with an arguably
> > discriminatory Recommendation.
> > 
> 
> Monotype would be very supportive if MTX compression is included as part
> of EOT-Lite Recommendation. Our offer and our commitment remains the
> same - we will provide unrestricted royalty-free patent license if MTX
> is included in the deal.

Cool.  I think that if there is a bit reserved
that signals MTX compression, MTX freedom from
patent hassles has to be part of the deal.

-t


> 
> Vladimir
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 03:00:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT