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

Hi Robert,


	From: [] On
Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
	Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:32 PM
	To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
	Cc:; David Woolley;
	Subject: Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise
	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

	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.
	Same here. I'd be surprise to learn that there are no other
technologies that have been implemented under W3C RF license.

		- 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 fine. 
	Monotype Imaging has offered the technology under a blanket W3C
RF policy, with no additional restrictions (see "Patents"

		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.
	Is this a standard procedure you are required to follow when you
implement a W3C Recommendation?
	Thank you,

	"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 21:45:25 UTC