summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi')
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/fontname/fontname.texi106
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