[Openfontlibrary] The license for this font does not allow user modification
Hi All, Interesting to see the proprietary font world pushing harder and harder in the wrong direction :-) -- Forwarded message -- From: Tiffany Wardle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11-Jul-2007 00:00 Subject: [ATypI] Disallowing Font Modification To: ATypI List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Recently a foundry owner told me that they think FontLab should not allow fonts to be modified. I took the thought to Ted Harrison but wondered if it would be something that FontLab was considering. But, Ted told me, We're trying not to get labeled as the font police. Absolutely fair and understandable. But he suggested another possibility. We're working to incorporate the EEULAA and personalization technology into the next generation of Fontlab products. A field already exists in the EEULAA for designating whether the font license allows modification or not. It is theoretically possible (although I'd have to see if Yuri would agree to this) to examine every font that is opened in a Fontlab product to see how this field is set. And to have certain things happen depending on what the software finds there. For instance, if the EEULAA says no modification, then a message might appear that says The license for this font does not allow user modification. Please contact the vendor to upgrade your license. and the font would not be opened. No key needed, just a new font with a new EEULAA. And there are, of course, infinite variations on this. How many of you would use this? Many of you do not allow font modification in your EULAs so I would think that most of you would want to use this. If the end user doesn't respect the license to begin with they'll find a hack regardless, right? Or, would your implementing something like this create even more piracy*? Hopefully if I've misquoted Ted he will chime in with correction. Regards, Tiffany *Piracy in the sense of simply disregarding your EULAs. ___ members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Dave ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] The license for this font does not allow user modification
hello dave, can you please elaborate why trying to have your rights respected is pushing harder and harder in the wrong direction? the type-design business depends on respect to the terms of font licenses. and as you all know, there is very little respect to those. what would be, in your oppinion, the right direction? regards, - gustavo. ps: i don't see how forwarding this message with an ironic comment is productive for OFL*... * btw, WHAT IS THE OFL? cheers! Em 10/07/2007, às 20:07, Dave Crossland escreveu: Hi All, Interesting to see the proprietary font world pushing harder and harder in the wrong direction :-) -- Forwarded message -- From: Tiffany Wardle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11-Jul-2007 00:00 Subject: [ATypI] Disallowing Font Modification To: ATypI List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Recently a foundry owner told me that they think FontLab should not allow fonts to be modified. I took the thought to Ted Harrison but wondered if it would be something that FontLab was considering. But, Ted told me, We're trying not to get labeled as the font police. Absolutely fair and understandable. But he suggested another possibility. We're working to incorporate the EEULAA and personalization technology into the next generation of Fontlab products. A field already exists in the EEULAA for designating whether the font license allows modification or not. It is theoretically possible (although I'd have to see if Yuri would agree to this) to examine every font that is opened in a Fontlab product to see how this field is set. And to have certain things happen depending on what the software finds there. For instance, if the EEULAA says no modification, then a message might appear that says The license for this font does not allow user modification. Please contact the vendor to upgrade your license. and the font would not be opened. No key needed, just a new font with a new EEULAA. And there are, of course, infinite variations on this. How many of you would use this? Many of you do not allow font modification in your EULAs so I would think that most of you would want to use this. If the end user doesn't respect the license to begin with they'll find a hack regardless, right? Or, would your implementing something like this create even more piracy*? Hopefully if I've misquoted Ted he will chime in with correction. Regards, Tiffany *Piracy in the sense of simply disregarding your EULAs. ___ members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Dave ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
Re: [Openfontlibrary] The license for this font does not allow user modification
Hi Gustavo! On 11/07/07, Gustavo Ferreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can you please elaborate why trying to have your rights respected is pushing harder and harder in the wrong direction? Sure! By pushing harder and harder, I mean, not only saying in the EULA you can't modify fonts, but also having technical protection measures against modification. By the wrong direction, I mean, moving away from user-modification. User modification is an essential right that we should have for all software we use. And Fonts are software, too. says http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/fonts.html :-) the type-design business depends on respect to the terms of font licenses. and as you all know, there is very little respect to those. Most people have no respect for those licenses, because they deny people basic and essential freedoms, and people intuit that they don't deserve to be respected. However, when you think about it, it is also not good to make an agreement and break it, right? But its also wrong to not share with friends or let someone have draconian power over you. The ethical way out of this dilemma is to refuse to accept proprietary software, and only use software you are free to use, share and improve. what would be, in your opinion, the right direction? Respecting users' freedom to use, share and improve their fonts, and using ways of organising business to not trample users' freedom. The more old school ATypI list members are also saying its a dumb idea, btw ps: i don't see how forwarding this message with an ironic comment is productive for OFL*... Well no, not really productive, I just thought it was funny and might be of interest to those here :-) * btw, WHAT IS THE OFL? cheers! Unfortunately, there is an acronym collision for open font license (which came first) and open font library. Generally, OFL is the license from SIL, and OFLB is the library. The OFLB will store most OFL fonts, and only OFL fonts, so they (will) have a lot in common. -- Regards, Dave ___ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
