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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:12:06 -0800
Message-Id: <3C550E8A-CF05-4DC1-AAE7-7FBFD249B1A7@gmail.com>
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I assumed that much of the talk about patent have to do with the fonts  
themselves, and not neccesarily MTX. Isn't it patent law, and not  
copyright, that protects fonts as IP in the US?

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 12, 2008, at 12:48 PM, "Robert O'Callahan"  
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

> 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)  
> 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 21:13:00 UTC

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