On 05/10/2012 04:51 AM, vern adams wrote:
> On 10 May 2012, at 00:36, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> On 05/09/2012 04:56 PM, vernon adams wrote:
>>> If you want to create a font with same metrics as a restricted font then you *may* have to go the long route and 'copy' the 'analogue' measurements. Anyway, the user agreement you may have entered into when purchasing the font, may restrict you from even 'modifying' the font by the action of opening it in a font editing program.
>> I can't really see how opening a file in a font-editing program counts
>> as "modifying." You have the right to use the font, that means you have
>> the right to *see* the darn thing, after all, in any format you like.
> Importing a digital font file into a programme like FontForge is definitely a modification of the original file. Font forge modifies the data file from one form (e.g. a truetype font) into another data form that is then readable, editable and displayable as e.g. metrics, outlines, points, metadata etc.
You may well be right; I don't claim particular knowledge of the law.
And probably didn't think about it enough.
>> IANAL, and sure there could be arguments with this (can it be prohibited
>> under the rubric of "reverse engineering"?), but I think anyone would
>> have a hard time convincing a judge that you broke your license by
>> *looking* at a file.
> I doubt a judge would need much convincing, as it's an obvious breach of a license that specifically restricts modification:) However, a relevant question is why& when would a software publisher spend time and money pursuing such licensing breaches?
That is indeed a much more important question. Especially since they
really couldn't know about such "breaches" unless something more than
"just looking" was done. Maybe not actually modifying the font, maybe
just using the information gained from it to design something else (e.g.
copying the metrics).