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

On Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:46 PM Robert O'Callahan wrote: 

	On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir
<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:
	

		Hi Robert,


________________________________

			
			From: rocallahan@gmail.com
[mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
			
			
			
			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.  
			 
			
			<VL>
			Monotype Imaging has offered the technology
under a blanket W3C RF policy, with no additional restrictions (see
"Patents" http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/).
			</VL> 


	As you know, the W3C RF policy is not enough for GPL compliance
(according to the FSF at least). We need to see the actual terms of your
license. The only documentation I have on those terms, beyond your
statement that they satisfy the W3C RF policy, is in a message to
w3c-css-wg on Oct 18, 2007, which I can't quote here since it was
W3C-member confidential, but it strongly suggests the license will be
limited to Web usage (and therefore incompatible with the GPL, according
to the FSF). 
	 
	The document you are referring to was a draft that has been
submitted to W3C prior to Monotype Imaging joining W3C as a member. The
official submission, published on May 26, 2008, was made in full
compliance with W3C RF policy, with no additional restrictions, and it
supersedes that document. I have no additional document to show you
other than what has been officially submitted to W3C.
	 
	
	
	Regards,
	Vladimir