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

I am sorry, I do not see a connection here. They sure can take your code
and use it for whatever purposes, including the non-browser projects,
but it doesn't mean that they have to inherit all patent licenses with
it. For example, FreeType has GPL implementation of TrueType hints. The
code is freely available but anyone who wish to use it would have to get
their own patent license.
Why is it any different with your code?
Thank you,


	From: [] On
Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
	Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:25 PM
	To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
	Cc: David Woolley;
	Subject: Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise
	On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir
<> wrote:

		I am not sure what you mean by field-of-use restriction.
The item 3 of W3C RF licensing
) clearly states that the license may be limited to implementations of
the Recommendation. The browser implementation would obviously qualify
as an implementation of this (future) recommendation.

	Yes. But David pointed out that that's insufficient for the
open-source licensing of two major browser engines. It's not enough that
we be able to use the method ourselves; we promise to our downstream
users, via the GPL or LGPL, that they can take our code and use it in
various ways, including for non-browser projects.
	So if Monotype insists on a field-of-use restriction, it may
become a W3C standard, but we still won't be able to implement it.
	"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 Tuesday, 11 November 2008 04:00:11 UTC