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

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

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:25:03 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600811101925q4195f5e2k715e5bec6bf8dc50@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
Cc: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:

>  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.
>

Yes. But David pointed out that that's insufficient for the open-source
licensing of two major browser engines. It's not enough that we be able to
use the method ourselves; we promise to our downstream users, via the GPL or
LGPL, that they can take our code and use it in various ways, including for
non-browser projects.

So if Monotype insists on a field-of-use restriction, it may become a W3C
standard, but we still won't be able to implement it.

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 03:25:40 GMT

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