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: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:49:50 -0500
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2767BFC@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: <simetrical@gmail.com>
Cc: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, <www-style@w3.org>

Thank you for clarifying the FSF position.

Based on the fact that FSF has published the official position on W3C RF
policy, I presume this is not the first time when a technology submitted
to W3C under W3C RF policy has been considered for implementation under
GPL license. I would really appreciate if you can help me understand the
following issues in details:
- Have the WebKit and/or Mozilla implemented any other technologies that
were submitted to W3C under existing W3C RF patent policy? 
- What is the criteria that is used, or the distinction that you make,
when the decision is made whether a particular technology contributed
under W3C RF license can or can not be implemented under GPL license? 

I am trying to understand what, if anything, can be done to make the
font compression technology and relevant essential claims compatible
with GPL terms, and I'd really appreciate your help.

Thank you,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: simetrical@gmail.com [mailto:simetrical@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:36 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 12:04 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir 
> <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:
> > This section clearly defines the subject - *the Program* 
> (which, is in 
> > this case, the web browser implementation) and the 
> condition - "If you 
> > cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations 
> > under this License and any other pertinent obligations 
> ...". According 
> > to W3C RF policy, you have all necessary rights that are granted to 
> > you to implement *the Program* and to permit royalty-free 
> > redistribution of *the Program*. None of the conditions of the W3C 
> > patent license imposed on you would contradict the 
> conditions of the 
> > GPL license, and would in any way limit your ability to 
> distribute *the Program*.
> >
> > These patent rights may not be granted to someone who 
> extracts pieces 
> > of the code from *the Program* and than uses it elsewhere 
> in another 
> > program. According to the GPL license - "You are not 
> responsible for 
> > enforcing compliance by third parties to this License." (GPL v.2, 
> > sec.6).
> The Free Software Foundation's official position on the W3C's 
> RF policy can be found here:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html
> Significant quote (there's a whole section on this, actually, 
> "Interaction with the GPL"):
> "'Field of use' restrictions are also legally incompatible 
> with section 7 of the GNU General Public License, since it 
> does not allow the user's freedom to modify to be shrunk to 
> zero in this way."
> The FSF therefore appears to believe that its license would 
> not permit either Mozilla or WebKit to implement font 
> compression technology that's patented with field-of-use 
> restrictions, as long as they would like to continue to be 
> distributed under the (L)GPL.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 20:49:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:41 UTC