tower@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (04/26/89)
These two articles were mis-posted on the adminitrivia USENET
newsgroup gnu.config. As they are of interest to gnu lovers, I am
reposting them here.
enjoy -len
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: bu-cs!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!polya!shap
From: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro)
Newsgroups: gnu.config
Subject: What about the Adobe Lawsuit?
Date: 16 Apr 89 00:30:54 GMT
Date-Received: 16 Apr 89 00:34:11 GMT
Sender: Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro)
Organization: Stanford University
Summary: FSF should think about a position
Note: I have sent this to gnu.config, because gnu.gcc clearly isn't
appropriate. I vote for creating gnu.politics.
As many of you will already know, fonts are not copyrightable under
the current copyright legislation. Unfortunately, while the intent
was to deny protection for font representations, the wording specifies
that it is the analog representation of fonts that is not
copyrightable.
The *description* of a font *is* copyrightable.
The copyright office has issued its opinion that the denial of
copyright should extend to _digital_ representations of fonts too (the
representations printed by laser printers and the like is digital).
Both Adobe and BitStream have filed suit to block this.
The copyright office has no legal standing to judge law, but the
precedent is that the courts pay strong heed to their input on the
grounds that they are experts in the field of copyright.
The issue is as follows: The Adobe font descriptions are protected.
The question is, should it be legal for me to make a printout of the
fonts in some very large size and use a scanner of some form to
reverse-engineer my own font description? Alternatively, should it be
legal for me to use the rasterization hook in the LaserWriter to get
the printer to send me back data about which dots are drawn in that
size [just saves scanning and consequent inaccuracies]?
The issue has been raised by a project at University of California at
Berkeley, which has done the latter, and is reselling their version of
the font descriptions for $10,000 complete to commercial institutions.
Their descriptions are in postscript, but are not the same as Adobe's
and therefore not a copyright infringement. [Even if they were the
same, a good case could be made under the "limited number of
representations" clause of the copyright legislation, that says that
representations of a concept that has a limited number of reasonable
representations cannot be copyrighted. Fonts are not copyrightable
under this logic.]
The issue is important to FSF because if fonts are not
reverse- engineerable, the benefit of GNU-ghostscript is greatly
diminished.
As further data for the fire, the hard part about reverse engineering
fonts is the "hints" - clues that tell the printer things like "all
the legs on an 'm' should be the same width. This hints are terribly
important in smaller sizes, where the line width begins to approximate
the dot width. Hints are not easily obtained from the printed form,
though automated systems with limited success exist.
So should FSF take a position on this case, and if so, is there a
concensus on what it should be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: bu-cs!purdue!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tektronix!orca!anvil!stank
From: stank@anvil.WV.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski)
Newsgroups: gnu.config
Subject: Re: What about the Adobe Lawsuit?
Date: 19 Apr 89 20:45:10 GMT
Date-Received: 20 Apr 89 02:35:22 GMT
Sender: nobody@orca.WV.TEK.COM
Reply-To: stank@anvil.WV.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR
The most recent issue of IEEE Micro magazine has an interesting
article about the copyright laws as they apply to enhancement
software. The article cites two cases where the definition of a
derivative work seems to be made broader, making it easier to claim
infringement. Recent interpretations of the Adobe decision that I
have seen on the "net" seem to say that restrictions are eased for
Adobe's competitors.
I am certainly no expert on Copyright law, but it seems to me that it
is terribly confused right now and lacks a direction. Personally, I
feel our government should abolish copyrights altogether and return to
the same "laissez faire" attitude that sparked the first industrial
revolution. Of course, I think they should adopt such a policy only
for copyrights and perhaps patents, I think the other reforms, e.g.
the rights of employees, still need to be protected. I know this is a
rather radical concept, but frankly I'm sick of seeing progress and
innovation stifled by lawyers.
DISCLAIMER: The above views are mine alone and do not necessarily
represent those of my employer.
stank
US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc.
Information Display Group, Interactive Technologies Division
PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070 Phone:(503)-685-2458
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank
----------------------------------------------------------------------