diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi')
-rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi | 106 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 101 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi index e9592dbcbff..90ac01a2a9d 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi @@ -3,9 +3,9 @@ @c @c @texinfofile{ @c author = "Karl Berry", -@c date = "30oct08", +@c date = "5jul09", @c filename = "fontname.texi", -@c email = "tex-fonts@@math.utah.edu", +@c email = "tex-fonts@math.utah.edu", @c url = "http://tug.org/fontname/", @c docstring = "A naming scheme for font files intended to be usable @c with all systems on which TeX runs." @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ This document is in the public domain and may be used freely. @titlepage @title Fontname -@subtitle October 2008 +@subtitle July 2009 @subtitle Filenames for @TeX{} fonts @author Karl Berry @end titlepage @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ This document is in the public domain and may be used freely. @node Top @top Filenames for @TeX{} fonts -This is Fontname, a naming scheme for (the base part of) external @TeX{} -font filenames. Last update 30 October 2008. +This is the Fontname document, a naming scheme for (the base part of) +external @TeX{} font filenames. Last update 5@tie{}July@tie{}2009. @menu * Introduction:: Rationale and basic information about fonts. @@ -50,7 +50,6 @@ font filenames. Last update 30 October 2008. * Long names:: A specification for long filenames. * Font name lists:: Real fontnames for many existing fonts. * Encodings:: Specifications for various encodings. -* Font legalities:: Legal issues vary from country to country. * General index:: Index. @detailmenu @@ -1245,101 +1244,6 @@ From Y&Y. @samp{texnansi} without repeats. @verbatiminclude xt2.enc -@node Font legalities -@appendix Font legalities - -@cindex legalisms -@cindex typeface design protection -@cindex copyright on fonts -@cindex font copyrighting -@cindex patenting of fonts - -@cindex Bigelow, Charles -@cindex Holmes, Kris -This section owes a great deal to Charles Bigelow (co-designer with Kris -Holmes of the Lucida typeface family, among others), who has generously -answered our many queries about fonts and the law around the world with -remarkable patience and understanding. (But he is naturally not -responsible for any errors here, much less our opinions.) - -Fonts have always been treated rather strangely under the law, as befits -their rather strange nature: letterforms are indivisibly both -@emph{useful} and @emph{artistic}. In most countries---in all countries -until recently---utility has taken precedence; i.e., it has been legal -to copy fonts without permission or fee. - -In any case, to the best of my knowledge, the situation in those -countries which have adopted any sort of typeface protection is as -follows. This was originally written in the early 1990's; these days, -the situation is probably different, due to widespread adoption of -software patents, among other things, but I lack specific information -to include. - -@table @asis - -@cindex United States, font design protection law -@cindex Lucida, protection of -@cindex Stone, protection of -@item United States -Typeface designs can be patented, but not copyrighted. Only a few -designs have been patented. (Lucida and Stone are the only ones I know -of. I don't know what the grounds were for patenting Stone, but Lucida -had some novel features in its design which make it reasonable to -patent, given the acceptance of the patent system in the first place.) - -Particular programs which instantiate a font can be copyrighted just as -any other computer program can. This is arguably wrong, since font -programs are nothing but a description of the shapes, possibly with some -simple hints, and there's only one basic way to describe the shapes in -any given language. Thus, the creativity lies in making the shape -right, not in making the computer program right, so it would seem that -to be consistent, the copyright laws should protect the design, not the -program---the opposite of the current situation. - -@cindex Germany, font design protection law -@cindex Renner, Paul -@cindex Futura -@item Germany -Typeface designs have been copyrightable as original works of art since -1981. As a result, many (perhaps most) designs have been copyrighted -there. The law is not retroactive, but German courts have upheld the -intellectual property rights of designers of earlier fonts as well: In -one case the heirs of Paul Renner (designer of Futura) won a suit against -the Bauer foundry for arbitrarily discontinuing a portion of their -royalties. - -@cindex England, font design protection law -@cindex Times Roman, protection of -@cindex Morison, Stanley -@item England -A copyright law passed in 1989 covers typeface designs first published -in England (or published in Britain within 30 days of its publication -elsewhere), and it @emph{is} retroactive. It's unclear how far back -the law extends, but Times Roman, designed in the late 1920's and -1930's by Stanley Morison is probably covered. This does not mean GNU -(for example) cannot have a Times Roman; it just means we cannot start -with an English version, as the law does not forbid importing foreign -versions of English typefaces. - -@cindex France, font design protection law -@cindex romain du roi -@cindex Grandjean, Philippe -@item France -The Romain du Roi typeface designed by Philippe Grandjean in 1702 for -the French royal family is protected, and perhaps other such ``royal'' -designs. There is no protection for designs in general. - -@end table - -@cindex Vienna treaty -In 1973 the international Vienna treaty on typeface design protection -was proposed. France ratified it in 1974 or 1975, and Germany in 1981. -The English law might constitute ratification, but this has not been -settled. In any case, since at least four countries have to ratify it -before it takes effect (and even then it takes effect only in those -countries which ratify it), it is still of no consequence for now. - - @node General index @unnumbered General index |