W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 1996

Re: Re[3]: Protecting WebFonts

From: Clive Bruton <Clive@typonaut.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 20:40:46 +0000
To: www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <AE47BC4F@typonaut.demon.co.uk>
Brad Chase:
>Michael Bernstein wrote:
>
>> TrueDoc creates new versions of existing fonts and distributes those 
>> new versions.  In any country where the outlines are protected, that 
>> distribution is illegal if it's without the permission of the 
>> copyright owner for the original outlines.  In the US, it's illegal 
>> for dingbat fonts and for fonts with design patents.
>
>TrueDoc performs the same function as a FAX machine. The difference is that 
>TrueDoc rasterizes at the receiver instead of the sender, allowing the use of 
>the best possible resolution.

As far as I remember it a fax has a fixed resolution, TruDoc has no such 
limitation, it embeds vector based fonts in documents, this has no resemblence 
to a fax whatsoever.

This is obviously the sort of misinformation that the TrueDoc consortium is 
distributing to its employees, as I've heard exactly the same line on a number 
of occasions.

>> Sure, if you play by the rules.  But Bitstream makes the software 
>> which will convert a font back into an installable font.  Even if 
>> Bitstream made that software unavailable, someone else could 
>> write it.  
>
>A challenge without knowing what the data format is....

Yes, took me all of half an hour. I wish everything else in lfe were so 
"challenging".

>
>> What's the situation then?  Bitstream says that it's ok to 
>> distribute the TrueDoc font file, so anyone who receives a 
>> TrueDoc font file must have a legitimate copy of that TrueDoc font 
>> file.
>
>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
>
>Bitstream says it's OK to distribute the TrueDoc font resource ONLY in 
>conjunction with an associated document to be imaged on the client system. 

But can do nothing to stop those being separated.

>> Anyone can receive them, and at that point can do whatever they
>> want with the font files, according to Bitstream's legal analysis.
>
>The font files may only be used to render the document they are associated 
>with.

So what is the difference between it and PDF embedding then?

>Michael, I'm glad that you're taking the time to explain your concerns. With 
>this detailed explanation, I can see that part of the problem is a lack of 
>clear
>understanding of what TrueDoc is and what it does. (Which in turn is likely due 
>to poor communications on our part.)

Isn't this what it is and what it does:

	Creates a poor quailty trace of an original font, thereby removing all
	"software" copyright.

	Makes that "resource" (I note with interest, as I'm sure others have, that 
	you have begun to call these things "fonts") available to anyone with half
	an ounce of spare grey matter, circumventing all copyright and licensing
	agreements.

	Therefore creating the instant TrueDoc font cloning factory.


>I think you'll find that Bitstream's aims and concerns are congruent with those 
>of font designers. After all, what value is there to a remote font imaging 
>technology (i.e. TrueDoc) if everyone already has the fonts????

Don't understand that, "if everyone already has the fonts", of course they don't 
already have the fonts, but you can sure provide them with facsimiles, ah, at 
last, the fabled fax link!


-- Clive
Received on Monday, 26 August 1996 16:05:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:29 UTC