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: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:48:32 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600811121248j581f1ae7p416752f29fb95eb4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
Cc: "Mikko Rantalainen" <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:

> And, when I am looking at the GPL license language, I do see that there
>
is obviously a provision there when modifying the Program to the point
> where all major parts of the intended functionality (e.g. CSS/HTML
> layout engine) are lost and only separate code fragments remain for
> completely different purpose would no longer be qualified as *the
> Program* but rather a different Program.From the point of view of the

letter of the law (and this is exactly how lawyers will look at it) GPL
> license and W3C RF policy are in agreement with each other.


Even if your lawyers give you an opinion that you can work around the GPL,
that's not definitive until the opinion is tested in court. Given the FSF's
stated position, a court challenge is likely. It would be unwise for
GPL/LGPL vendors to take that risk, even if they were keen on working around
the GPL, which Mozilla certainly is not.

I know, the
> advocates of the FSF would claim that W3C policy may be against the
> spirit of FSF and GPL license, but the only way I can get the acceptable
> result is if I can make a very good case to my company lawyer as to why
> this binding legal commitment to give away our legitimate patent rights
> (and the rights to protect our IP) is necessary. Last time I checked -
> lawyers don't deal with spirits :)


It's not necessary: you can walk away right now with your IP rights intact.
No compromise that achieves field-of-use restrictions is going to be
acceptable to Mozilla, so I don't think a compromise is possible here. Your
options are to drop your restrictions, walk away, or press ahead with
standardization without our support.

But why do we need MTX to solve the font format controversy, anyway? If
"obfuscation plus Access Control" is satisfactory to font vendors, then we
can easily find an unencumbered obfuscation solution --- just flip some bits
in the header. Or we could use gzip as the obfuscation. We could even come
up with an alternative, unencumbered split-stream compression method,
depending on how Monotype's patent claims are worded and the prior art
situation.

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 Wednesday, 12 November 2008 20:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:17 GMT