- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:25:31 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Kew" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Hello Jonathan, On Monday, June 22, 2009 3:22 PM Jonathan Kew wrote: > > On 22 Jun 2009, at 18:15, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: > > > I believe the patent issues have already been resolved, see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0228.html > > . > > I presume you are referring to this paragraph: > > <quote> > For avoidance of any doubt, Monotype Imaging agrees not to exercise > its rights to apply limitations known as a "field of use restriction" > if our technology is implemented as a part of a W3C Recommendation, > and we are willing to work with any interested party, whether a W3C > member or not, to make our IP available on a RF basis for the purpose > of developing and prototyping the implementations of a future W3C > Recommendation. > </quote> > > Is it correct to understand that you are speaking as an official > representative of Monotype Imaging at this point? On that assumption, > I appreciate this statement of the company's intent, and the positive > attitude that I believe lies behind it. Thank you. > > To clarify further, when you say "agrees not to exercise its rights to > apply limitations....", are you making a commitment that Monotype will > offer a patent license free of any such restriction, or are you saying > that although the W3C-compliant license to be offered may be limited, > Monotype will not actually seek to enforce such limitations? IANAL, > but as I'm trying to think about this, I see a critical distinction > here. What I think we need is an explicit commitment to offer a patent > license that is not only W3C-compliant but also GPL-compatible; is > that what you are promising? > Yes, I am speaking as a representative of Monotype Imaging, and we are making a commitment to offer a GPL-compatible patent license that is free of field of use restriction if our compression technology becomes a part of the future web font standard. > > When it comes to a derivative work where the only purpose is to rip > > EOT font and install it as system font - I think we are all in > > agreement that this is inevitable and patent will never prevent this. > > True; regrettable, perhaps, but still inevitable. > > > An efficient web font solution will benefit all web users and will > > accommodate all fonts, whether commercial or free. > > Indeed, and there are some attractive technical benefits to EOT, or > something similar to it. If you can definitely confirm Monotype's > commitment to offer a fully GPL-compatible patent license, ideally > with at least draft text of such a potential license (so that others > can independently evaluate the issue of license compatibility), then I > think the chance of persuading non-MS browser developers to consider > adding EOT support will be considerably improved. > I have the management approval to offer a GPL-compatible license, it's a promise that is contingent on the adoption of the technology in question. I am not sure I can offer you a draft text of the license - this would require engaging our legal counsel which I am reluctant do at this point - we do not even have the Fonts WG setup yet. I am sure we'll have time to iron this out while we are in the process of creating the recommendation. > > The solution that is *only* suitable for free fonts is not a good > > solution. > > Certainly. And even for free fonts, the compression possibilities of > EOT could still be very worthwhile. > > On the other hand, given that current (or very near-future) versions > of all the main non-MS browsers will be supporting .ttf/.otf files > (and not .eot files), perhaps foundries that are willing to license > fonts for web use should consider John Daggett's recent suggestion, > which as I understand it would work with today's browsers: create the > desired "fences" simply by appropriate font naming. For example, the > Monotype EULA that permits .eot use on a web server could also > permit .otf use on a web server provided the font is internally > renamed along the lines John suggested. That would (it seems to me) > serve as a pretty clear "No Trespassing" sign, too, and would allow > sites to be both IE-compatible and FF/Opera/...-compatible in their > font deployment. Used in this way, direct linking to .otf files need > not be suitable *only* for free fonts. > I am afraid to do what John proposed would be absolutely impractical and prohibitively expensive from the production process point of view. I cannot see how we can put this burden on our customers, and I don't think that modifying every single copy of a font licensed for web use by changing its name will work, especially because I'd imagine that most font EULAs would also allow non-web use where normal, full-featured font versions with proper names and styles have to be supported. Regards, Vladimir > Jonathan
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 21:26:01 UTC