- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:26:39 -0400
- To: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:00 PM Thomas Lord wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:44 -0400, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: > > On Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:10 PM Thomas Lord wrote: > > > > > > > > If EOT-lite becomes the recommendation, is the > > > > > previously discussed patent de-encumberence of MTX > > > > > included in the deal? > > > > > > > No, as currently defined EOT-Lite does not include MTX > compression. > > > > > > That's something that will come up as things move > > > forward. I think that's a problem. Can we hear > > > from Monotype on that? Maybe they wouldn't mind > > > if MTX patents became safe to implement if EOT-lite > > > is adopted. Otherwise, we wind up with an arguably > > > discriminatory Recommendation. > > > > > > > Monotype would be very supportive if MTX compression is included as > part > > of EOT-Lite Recommendation. Our offer and our commitment remains the > > same - we will provide unrestricted royalty-free patent license if > MTX > > is included in the deal. > > Cool. I think that if there is a bit reserved > that signals MTX compression, MTX freedom from > patent hassles has to be part of the deal. > The reserved bit by itself doesn't define anything. If compression is part of the spec, and spec says that the compressed font must be decompressed using the technology defined in the spec, then yes, MTX is part of the deal. As it currently proposed though, the bit is simply checked and, if set, the compressed font file is not loaded. It is really up to browser people to agree on whether or not to implement it, Monotype is in no position to influence this decision on way or another, we can only encourage this by offering hassle-free RF patent license. > -t > > > > > > Vladimir > > > >
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 03:26:59 UTC