[libcaca] Re: [libcaca-svn] toilet: svn commit r102 (sam)

[Jean-Yves Lamoureux <jylam@lnxscene.org>]

Sam Hocevar wrote:

>    Yeah, they are free. A bitmap rendering of a font (be it free or not)
> does not qualify for copyright. US Copyright office only considers a
> font copyrightable when it is a computer program, ie. a vector font. You
> can read about it on http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_13.htm

Not that I want to start a war about this, but :

1/ You are talking about debates about an *US* court definition
2/ We are not all Us native, like you^W who ?
3/ If I resize mono lisa, copyright applies to me as well as any drawing
(and I consider a font as a drawing)
4/ Everyone is publishing screenshots of fonts at anytime
5/ I really don't care, but ... still.
6/ Don't know, really, just don't know.


Anyway, when I read things like "However, scalable fonts are, in the
opinion of the Copyright Office, computer programs, and as such are
copyrightable:", I can't not think about "If a court or a random office
says a font is a piece of software, then it'll be quite easy to
demonstrate the opposite, and anyway a vector drawing *must* be
converted to raster drawing before being shown, so this drawing is
copyrighted so a font can be so a rasterized version is not free neither
 public domain".
I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I'm just wondering.




-- 
Jean-Yves Lamoureux
-- 
This is the libcaca mailing-list, see http://libcaca.zoy.org/
Trouble unsubscribing? Please contact <sam@zoy.org>
List archives are at http://libcaca.zoy.org/list/