Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
d. collins wrote:
What exactly is an open-source font?
and I would suggest that it is an extension of the idea of open-source code, that is a font which anyone could freely alter according to one's own whims, as one can open source code in a software program. Presumably in the license one obtains to use a commercial font, one is prevented from reverse engineering it, so that, for example, if one wanted to replicate some of the old English style of choral music, where the melismatic inter-syllabic and intraword characters is the dot, rather than the hyphen, one is not able to alter the commercial font to do this without special permission.
That said, in the U.S., there is a special morass regarding fonts. By statute in the U.S., "fonts" are expressly not copyrightable, to the consternation of font designers. In typical fashion, though, the U.S. courts muddied the waters in a case brought by Adobe (as I recall, may have been someone else) against an individual in Florida, who attempted to remarket adobe's fonts. As I understand it, the gist of the ruling is that because computer fonts are produced by processing through software, they are computer programs, and eligible for copyright protection, where the exact same typeface, if engraved into a die, and cast, would not be.
ns
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
right.
This case was brought in the United States District Court
for the Nothern District of California and was settled after the issuance of the Summary Judgment.
ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHERN SOFTWARE, INC., et al., Defendants,
NO. C95-20710 RMW(PVT)
The court focused on the fact that unique code created the output and the copying of this code constituted the infringing act.
Key points fom the opinion:
"The code is determined directly from the selection of the points. Thus, any coping of the points is copying of literal expression, that is, in essence, copying of the computer code itself."
"That some creativity is involved is illustrated by the fact that two independently working programmers using the same data and same tools can produce an indistinguishable output but will have few points in common. Accordingly, the court finds that the Adobe font software programs are protectable original works of authorship."
The full opinion can be viewed at: http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980303/9520710.htm
(It is ironic, in this era of digital publishing, that one cannot easily obtain a court opinion without having to access a commercial publisher who asserts copyright over publication of the opinion.)
--
John Poole
Editions Poole http://www.editionspoole.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
