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: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:45:30 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600811111445u11d4c6f9v6d7735e8bfa3f9eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
Cc: simetrical@gmail.com, "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:

>  Hi Robert,
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> O'Callahan
> *
> *
> If someone offers a blanket royalty-free license without field-of-use
> restrictions (or any other restrictions incompatible with the GPL), we can
> implement it. An unconditional, universal, royalty-free license would be
> fine.
>  <VL>
> Monotype Imaging has offered the technology under a blanket W3C RF policy,
> with no additional restrictions (see "Patents"
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/).
> </VL>
>
>
As you know, the W3C RF policy is not enough for GPL compliance (according
to the FSF at least). We need to see the actual terms of your license. The
only documentation I have on those terms, beyond your statement that they
satisfy the W3C RF policy, is in a message to w3c-css-wg on Oct 18, 2007,
which I can't quote here since it was W3C-member confidential, but it
strongly suggests the license will be limited to Web usage (and therefore
incompatible with the GPL, according to the FSF).

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.
>
>
> Thanks. Your effort is very much appreciated. You may want to contact the
> FSF directly; they have people (even actual lawyers) experienced at
> answering this sort of question. If you can get their approval, I can't
> imagine Mozilla would have any further objections on patent grounds.
>
>  <VL> Is this a standard procedure you are required to follow when you
> implement a W3C Recommendation?
>
>
No, but I'm not aware of any other situation where someone has disclosed
that they have essential patents whose RF license grant will be restricted
to implementations of the recommendation.

Now that you mention it, we probably should be vetting the actual patent
licenses of everyone who discloses patent interests, to check whether
they're GPL compatible, but we aren't. That's something we should probably
look into.

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 22:46:11 GMT

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