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