September 2005 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: [gutvol-d] bb's alice uses copyrighted font
by Joshua Hutchinson 29 Sep '05

29 Sep '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynne Anne Rhodes" <oxbow(a)spiritbase.net> > > Sorry to keep on but I feel there is still confusion. Please correct me if I > am wrong but my understanding of this issue is: > > 1. Glyphs are not copyrightable anywhere. Plenty of books abound with full > sets of typeface glyphs with no hint of any copyright rules. Of course the > book itself as a work bears it own copyright. Typefaces *are* copyrightable and have been for some time. In fact, my recently purchased copy of Harry Potter contain a little blurb on the last page explaining the font used and its history as well as claiming a copyright on the font. Now, whether this copyright is enforceable, you'd have to talk with a lawyer. I don't know of any instances of it being challenged in court. I do know big companies like Microsoft, who employ more lawyers than some small countries boast, have paid a lot of money in the past for licenses for fonts, which they wouldn't need if there were no copyright attached to the typefaces. Josh

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] here's that alice pdf
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 29 Sep '05

29 Sep '05

keith said: > LaTex ... > Just my two cents worth. thanks keith! :+) -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] here's that alice pdf
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 29 Sep '05

29 Sep '05

joey said: > I was *very* clear about who my email was addressed to, > and what the content of the email was. so was i. > Your assumption that my reply had > anything to do with your concept of round-tripping files > isn't my problem. i made no such "assumption" that your reply had anything to do with my concept. indeed, i was intentionally pointing out that it did not. so both of us now agree that what you said had nothing to do with what i was talking about. it was a good piece of information for the people to whom it is relevant, so i'm glad you shared it. i just remarked it had nothing to do with roundtripping, so casual readers would have the message reinforced that clean text, per se, was not my important point... now, how often do we want to keep repeating all this? -bowerbird

2 1

heads up to pace yourselves
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 29 Sep '05

29 Sep '05

this is just a quick little heads-up that i'll share about 10 example documents over the next two weeks, so you might wanna consider pacing yourselves, folks. it's dangerous to keep flamethrowers on "high" for that long a time-period... -bowerbird p.s. lawrence lessig's "free culture" will be in that batch, if you haven't read it...

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] here's that alice pdf -- a note for the lurkers
by Doug Schroeder 29 Sep '05

29 Sep '05

bowerbird(a)aol.com wrote: >some of you lurkers might have some thoughts >on the sample documents i have posted lately, >but be reluctant to step into this fray >where the flamethrowers splay. Leslie, I'll bite. Keep up the good work - I'm a huge Rube Goldberg fan.

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] here's that alice pdf
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 29 Sep '05

29 Sep '05

joey said: > so I'll make you a deal. > You come up with some boilerplate that um, yeah, joey, i'll get right on that... -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] here's that alice pdf
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

joey said: > Bowerbird: > Please read more carefully. > My email was not addressed to you. but it was placed in a thread that i originated, a thread which is discussing a .pdf that i created, and it was in reference to a specific term which i had just introduced in a post 8 minutes earlier. since some people, who might not have read that whole post, or had time to fully digest it, could have thought your post had relevance to the idea attached to that specific term, and thereby misunderstood the true nature (and thus import) of that term, i cleared it up. by all means, give users clean text in a copy operation! that's a good thing to do! at the same time, however, round-tripping as a concept contains more than that... if you would have acknowledged that shortcoming -- in regard to the larger topic -- and pointed out that you were only addressing the less-important subtopic, i wouldn't have considered that you'd fallen into the pit. > I didn't mention round-tripping > because that's not something > I have the least bit of interest in. but i did mention it because i do... -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] here's that alice pdf
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

joshua said: > The best solution, that I've found, is to > route anything from bowerbird directly into the trash bin. i recommend that for people who experience bad emotional reactions when they read my messages. i don't care if you trash my messages. whether you read them or not makes absolutely no difference to me. but don't read something into them that i never put in them, and then blame me for the emotion you feel. > I only see his stuff when others reply to it because only hearing one side of an argument is a great way to make up your mind, isn't it? i mean, because if you listen to _both_ sides, it can get _complicated_, know what i mean? so just pick the side that you want to believe, and then just listen to that side. makes it easy. and you know what? that's fine by me. but if you ain't gonna read the whole thread, don't jump into the thread. if you only read every other chapter in the book, i _really_ do not care to hear your "opinion" on it... > (which actually makes his stuff more interesting, > because only the truly assinine statements > get quoted and I get a good chuckle). "quoted"? or misquoted? i find when many of my opponents represent what i've said, they _misrepresent_ what i said. so if you're not reading what i really said, only listening to people tell you what they say i said, you're not getting the whole story, by any stretch... but hey, it occurs to me that most of you actually prefer _not_ to have the whole story, not just in regard to me, but for many things. (x.m.l. being just one prime example.) some of you seem to be very highly skilled at sticking your head in the ground... -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] here's that alice pdf -- a note for the lurkers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

some of you lurkers might have some thoughts on the sample documents i have posted lately, but be reluctant to step into this fray where the flamethrowers splay. i understand. if you want to share your thoughts backchannel with me, i would be happy to do that. normally i eschew backchat, because for me the main point of a listserve is to engage in public conversation, not private chats, but in this case i'll make exception... -bowerbird

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] bb's alice uses copyrighted font
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

enough about the font already! first of all, i've received no cease-and-desist letter. next, do you notice all the "user options" that we've discussed now? there are even 14 more we haven't. and no one has yet even mentioned the _biggest_ decision-fork faced by a producer of a .pdf, namely whether the .pdf is intended for on-screen reading or for printing to paper. (i was waiting to see just how long it took this listserve to come up with it. as usual, you seemingly have never thought about this overall topic, and don't even know the basics. but many of you bluster about as if you're experts.) all these options mean it is sheer folly to try to generate one .pdf that will fit everyone's desires. so end-users will create _their_own_ .pdfs, and issues like font copyrights won't come into play. (or if they do, they're focused on that one user.) and more importantly, as i said in that opus, i've rejected the idea that the author controls things like fonts, so down the line i will not be using anything but the default acrobat fonts. that makes the .pdf smaller. and furthermore, in _my_ opinion, the "multiple-master" fonts from acrobat are some of best-looking around. roll all these facts together and the path is clear: no fonts should be embedded in any .pdf we make. if a specific user wants a .pdf with certain fonts, that user will have to make that .pdf themselves. i used georgia as an _example_, and this case quite clearly falls into the realm of _research_, meaning this is a bright-line case of fair use, so there's no copyright issue here! stop falling for marcello's red herrings; they're poisoned fish. -bowerbird

1 0