Re: Webfont compression

Vladimir wrote:

> I made a promise on this list on behalf of Monotype Imaging to offer
> unrestricted, GPL-compatible, royalty-free license for MTX compression
> technology and the use of patents associated with it. 

Can you explain what you mean by 'GPL-compatible', please? Some 
colleagues were expressing doubt that GPL would be suitable for the kind 
of license that would enable flexible use of MTX, i.e. without putting 
GPL requirements onto developers implementing MTX in their software. It 
has been suggested that something like an MIT license would be better. 
But perhaps by 'GPL-compatible' you don't mean GPL itself, but only 
something that ensures that the license is unrestricted and royalty-free.

I'm sure there are plenty of people more qualified than me to advise on 
the best license model, but I thought I would mention this to ensure 
that there is no misunderstanding about the commitment you have made.

> The offer is
> unequivocal, and is contingent only on the adoption of the technology as
> part of a web font solution (any solution, whether EOT or its
> derivative, or any future webfont solution). 

What does this contingency look like? What is necessary to satisfy this 
condition? This is this is the aspect that seems vague to me and perhaps 
to others, and might give the impression to some that Monotype's 
commitment is conditional on something that has not be adequately defined.

It could be argued that MTX technology is *already* 'part of a web font 
solution' in being implemented in EOT. Since that web font solution 
isn't going to go away, and may yet expand to support in other browsers, 
does that meet the condition for releasing MTX as you describe? If not, 
what is the condition? A web font solution embraced and codified by the 
W3C? A web font solution that to which unspecified number of browsers 

John Hudson

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 03:41:51 UTC