On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:49:15 -0800 Louis Santillan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Mattias Andrée > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:06:12 +0100 > > Christian Neukirchen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> [email protected] (mpu) writes: > >> > >> > Ben Woolley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> What licenses are the tools and the font? There > >> >> doesn't seem to be a copyright statement or license > >> >> anywhere. Maybe > >> >>I am missing something obvious... > >> > > >> > The license and the font are now public domain, maybe > >> > I'll put a BSD license on the font some day, when I > >> > judge the quality makes it worth it. > >> > >> In the US and in Germany, pixel fonts can not be > >> copyrighted and are thus public domain. > >> > > > > WTF‽ That is the stupidest thing ever. They are equally > > difficult and time consuming to make. > > However, the font name is copyrightable which is often > way you see similar looking fonts (possibly copied) with > a derivative name. > I think you mean trademarkable. On the subject on legal matters. Some legislation do not require an trademark statement or use of trademark symbols. And I do not think any require the, so often used, trademark acknowledgement.
pgp00gJZ3TfKo.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
