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

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:

>  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?
>

Section 7 of the GPLv2 makes it clear that anyone who would distribute
Freetype under the GPL, and who has a license for the hinting patent, must
ensure that anyone they distribute it to has the same rights under the
license. Effectively that means anyone who's licensed the patent can't
distribute Freetype or derived works under the GPL.

It's also clear that Mozilla could not distribute GPLed code if *we* were to
add the condition that it only be used to implement the W3C recommendation.

Perhaps this MTX situation is be a gray area with respect to the letter of
the GPL. It's not clear to me whether the license granted to W3C
recommendation implementors triggers section 7 in this case --- I'm
certainly no lawyer --- or what happens if it does. But it's definitely
against the *spirit* of the license, since it means that some people who
receive Firefox code would effectively have less rights to use that code
than we do. That's something we should avoid if at all possible --- we're
not in the game of seeing what we can get away with within the letter of the
license.

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]