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

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <> wrote:

> Based on the fact that FSF has published the official position on W3C RF
> policy, I presume this is not the first time when a technology submitted
> to W3C under W3C RF policy has been considered for implementation under
> GPL license. I would really appreciate if you can help me understand the
> following issues in details:
> - Have the WebKit and/or Mozilla implemented any other technologies that
> were submitted to W3C under existing W3C RF patent policy?

I personally don't know which, if any, of the W3C technologies we've
implemented are subject to patent licensing under the W3C RF policy. But I'd
be surprised if there weren't any.

- What is the criteria that is used, or the distinction that you make,
> when the decision is made whether a particular technology contributed
> under W3C RF license can or can not be implemented under GPL license?

If someone offers a blanket royalty-free license without field-of-use
restrictions (or any other restrictions incompatible with the GPL), we can
implement it. An unconditional, universal, royalty-free license would be

I am trying to understand what, if anything, can be done to make the
> font compression technology and relevant essential claims compatible
> with GPL terms, and I'd really appreciate your help.

Thanks. Your effort is very much appreciated. You may want to contact the
FSF directly; they have people (even actual lawyers) experienced at
answering this sort of question. If you can get their approval, I can't
imagine Mozilla would have any further objections on patent grounds.

"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

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 21:32:48 UTC