5 ms·

I've considered doing just that, but it wouldn't be the right thing to do. I don't want to make money using something that technically isn't mine to use.

by maxaf 10y ago

soperj 10y ago
What's the technicality? Typefaces are exempt from copyright protection.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  Technically they are licensed as software, so they are not copyright-free.
- maxaf 10y ago
  As @elcapitan said, licensing is the same as for software. Fonts are intellectual property (IP), just like most other intangible products of R&D. It is too bad, of course, and my usual opinion about IP applies. However, we don't live in an ideal world, and many of us are stuck following rules we don't agree with. What I'd personally find more interesting is a first-principles research effort to find out what makes some fonts so much better than others. My gut tells me that such an effort might yield, as a side effect, a formal method for creating such fonts that are especially well suited for a specific purpose.
- JonathonW 10y ago
  Typeface designs are not copyrightable-- there's nothing stopping me from looking at (for example) Futura, redrawing it, and selling the redrawn version myself. (Coincidentally, Futura itself, as a popular pre-digital era typeface, has been independently digitized several times by different companies.) Font files, meaning the specific binary files implementing a typeface on your computer, most certainly are copyrightable and licensable. If I were to purchase Myriad from Adobe, I couldn't just hand that font over to you-- that would be against the license agreement and would qualify as software piracy. (This is all based on US copyright; YMMV if you're elsewhere.)
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Out of curiosity, I just installed Bloomberg Professional (all 2GB+ of it; contrary to the Quora post, the font package won't run by itself, you have to install the entire program), copied the fonts, and uninstalled it. At no point was I shown any sort of licensing agreement or terms of service. I fell no moral obligation to refrain from local use of some fonts that Bloomberg offered me for free.
- lstamour 10y ago
  Not actually true. When you install the software required for the addons to install, it says quite clearly: > The software contained herein (the "Software") is made available to you ("You") solely pursuant to the terms of the agreement that You previously entered into with Bloomberg ("Bloomberg Agreement"). IF YOU HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO THE BLOOMBERG AGREEMENT, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, RUN AND/OR OPERATE THE SOFTWARE OR ANY PORTION THEREOF IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. I think that's pretty darn clear if you ask me. Besides that, in the agreement itself well ... actually it's kind of vague, because it's sooo dang long and in such small print that I fell asleep hunting for it: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/700565-bloomberg-terminal-contract.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/700565-bloomberg-ter... I suppose in the long run, as long as you aren't redistributing it or making a profit off its use, Bloomberg considers its data more valuable than its terminal software or fonts. After all, they do make it publicly available for download without a license agreement. (Shakes fist at Oracle/Sun...)
  - apaprocki 10y ago
    Disclaimer: I work for Bloomberg building out the infrastructure used to power the Terminal and was involved in the project creating the font from the beginning. Bloomberg commissioned the custom-designed font from Matthew Carter[1] (Verdana/Tahoma/Georgia fame) because we outgrew the ancient simple bitmap font that was used since the software was moved to run on Windows. A lot of time and effort went into creating it. The font is actually not our property (it does contain other glyphs not created as part of the project and owned by "large type foundry X") and we are granted a license to distribute the font to our customers in our software. I just wanted to point out that this type of thing comes up all the time and is misunderstood by most people who are used to using FOSS. We can't give away what we do not own, so the license restrictions are not necessarily because we're selfish and don't want something to be open, but because there are actual license fees, contracts, etc. signed with the owner backing it all up. As for why the owner ultimately does not want it to be free -- they are a type foundry and are in the business of selling fonts. (It's a separate discussion, but this also usually applies to data as well as fonts.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Carter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Carter

I've considered doing just that, but it wouldn't be the right thing to do. I don't want to make money using something that technically isn't mine to use.

by maxaf 10y ago

I've considered doing just that, but it wouldn't be the right thing to do. I don't want to make money using something that technically isn't mine to use.

soperj 10y ago

What's the technicality? Typefaces are exempt from copyright protection.

elcapitan 10y ago
Technically they are licensed as software, so they are not copyright-free.
maxaf 10y ago
As @elcapitan said, licensing is the same as for software. Fonts are intellectual property (IP), just like most other intangible products of R&D. It is too bad, of course, and my usual opinion about IP applies. However, we don't live in an ideal world, and many of us are stuck following rules we don't agree with. What I'd personally find more interesting is a first-principles research effort to find out what makes some fonts so much better than others. My gut tells me that such an effort might yield, as a side effect, a formal method for creating such fonts that are especially well suited for a specific purpose.
JonathonW 10y ago
Typeface designs are not copyrightable-- there's nothing stopping me from looking at (for example) Futura, redrawing it, and selling the redrawn version myself. (Coincidentally, Futura itself, as a popular pre-digital era typeface, has been independently digitized several times by different companies.) Font files, meaning the specific binary files implementing a typeface on your computer, most certainly are copyrightable and licensable. If I were to purchase Myriad from Adobe, I couldn't just hand that font over to you-- that would be against the license agreement and would qualify as software piracy. (This is all based on US copyright; YMMV if you're elsewhere.)

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

Out of curiosity, I just installed Bloomberg Professional (all 2GB+ of it; contrary to the Quora post, the font package won't run by itself, you have to install the entire program), copied the fonts, and uninstalled it. At no point was I shown any sort of licensing agreement or terms of service. I fell no moral obligation to refrain from local use of some fonts that Bloomberg offered me for free.

lstamour 10y ago
Not actually true. When you install the software required for the addons to install, it says quite clearly: > The software contained herein (the "Software") is made available to you ("You") solely pursuant to the terms of the agreement that You previously entered into with Bloomberg ("Bloomberg Agreement"). IF YOU HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO THE BLOOMBERG AGREEMENT, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, RUN AND/OR OPERATE THE SOFTWARE OR ANY PORTION THEREOF IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. I think that's pretty darn clear if you ask me. Besides that, in the agreement itself well ... actually it's kind of vague, because it's sooo dang long and in such small print that I fell asleep hunting for it: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/700565-bloomberg-terminal-contract.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/700565-bloomberg-ter... I suppose in the long run, as long as you aren't redistributing it or making a profit off its use, Bloomberg considers its data more valuable than its terminal software or fonts. After all, they do make it publicly available for download without a license agreement. (Shakes fist at Oracle/Sun...)
- apaprocki 10y ago
  Disclaimer: I work for Bloomberg building out the infrastructure used to power the Terminal and was involved in the project creating the font from the beginning. Bloomberg commissioned the custom-designed font from Matthew Carter[1] (Verdana/Tahoma/Georgia fame) because we outgrew the ancient simple bitmap font that was used since the software was moved to run on Windows. A lot of time and effort went into creating it. The font is actually not our property (it does contain other glyphs not created as part of the project and owned by "large type foundry X") and we are granted a license to distribute the font to our customers in our software. I just wanted to point out that this type of thing comes up all the time and is misunderstood by most people who are used to using FOSS. We can't give away what we do not own, so the license restrictions are not necessarily because we're selfish and don't want something to be open, but because there are actual license fees, contracts, etc. signed with the owner backing it all up. As for why the owner ultimately does not want it to be free -- they are a type foundry and are in the business of selling fonts. (It's a separate discussion, but this also usually applies to data as well as fonts.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Carter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Carter