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: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:20:32 -0500
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2767CD9@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: "Mikko Rantalainen" <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
Fonts (both the code and the vector outlines) under US copyright law
have the same level of protection as software, but the letterform shapes
themselves are excluded from copyright protection. However, typeface
design that is embodied in a font may also be protected by a design
The IP that is subject of this discussion is related to MTX.


	From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brkemper.comcast@gmail.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:12 PM
	To: robert@ocallahan.org
	Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir; Mikko Rantalainen; www-style@w3.org
	Subject: Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise
	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) 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.
		"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 21:20:40 UTC

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