W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2008

RE: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:13:35 -0500
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2767B4D@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, <www-style@w3.org>
I am not sure what you mean by field-of-use restriction. The item 3 of
W3C RF licensing
requirements(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-RF
) clearly states that the license may be limited to implementations of
the Recommendation. The browser implementation would obviously qualify
as an implementation of this (future) recommendation.
 
Regards,
Vlad
 


________________________________

	From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
	Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:36 PM
	To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
	Cc: David Woolley; www-style@w3.org
	Subject: Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise
proposal
	
	
	On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir
<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:
	

		For my own education - how do you get around this when
similar issues occur with other technologies that are patent-protected
and licensed according W3C RF policy? 
		


	I'm not aware of other technologies that are W3C standards,
patent-protected, where the RF license carries field-of-use
restrictions. I didn't even realize that the W3C policy allowed that.
	
	Rob
	
	-- 
	"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our
iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by
his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of
us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity
of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
	
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 03:13:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:16 GMT