5 ms·
It's a common misconception that fonts are only the implementation of typefaces on computers. The specific weights and sizes of glyphs that comprise a font appl
by ovao 8y ago
It's a common misconception that fonts are only the implementation of typefaces on computers. The specific weights and sizes of glyphs that comprise a font apply both to traditional typesetting and in its digital form.
A font file is more akin to a photograph than to the environment of which the photo is taken, so it's not clear why the morality of licensing photos and fonts would apply any differently.
- rangibaby 8y ago> A font file is more akin to a photograph than to the environment of which the photo is taken, so it's not clear why the morality of licensing photos and fonts would apply any differently. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Sorry in advance if I misunderstood your point
- zuminator 8y agoFonts are not like photos, they have hinting and kerning and conditional code that distinguishes a high quality font from crap. The glyph substitution table in OpenType fonts is of such complexity that it's been shown to be Turing complete. [https://litherum.blogspot.com/2019/03/addition-font.html https://litherum.blogspot.com/2019/03/addition-font.html]
- NullPrefix 8y agoDid you just called monospaced fonts crap?
- erik_seaberg 8y agoNot sure about kerning, but monospace fonts do have hinting so that rasterizing any size still works without big aliasing and weight problems.
- ovao 8y agoI wasn’t arguing that fonts are more or less complex than photos, but that from the perspective of implementation and/or copyright, fonts are more like photos (which are implicitly under copyright in the U.S.) than the subject of a photo (like, say, a pasture, a person or a horse). In other words, a font is the specific representation of the concept, idea and qualities that define a typeface, as a photo is a representation of the qualities of its subject.