zlacker

[return to "You wouldn't steal a font"]
1. azalem+t1[view] [source] 2025-04-23 19:53:37
>>todsac+(OP)
That is an absolutely brilliant turn of events – strong evidence that the font in an anti-piracy campaign was itself arguably a copyright-infringing knock-off.

Someone should sue FACT for copyright infringement – and refuse to settle.

◧◩
2. NoMore+D8[view] [source] 2025-04-23 20:46:56
>>azalem+t1
> was itself arguably a copyright-infringing knock-off.

In US law, there is no such thing. The shape of a glyph (or many) isn't even slightly copyrightable. This is settled law. Fonts (on computers) have a special status that makes them semi-copyrightable in that some jackass judge from the 1980s called them "computer programs" and so they have the same protection as software... but this won't protect against knockoffs.

◧◩◪
3. rafram+Mj[view] [source] 2025-04-23 22:06:12
>>NoMore+D8
They are computer programs. Not sure why you’d crudely insult the judge for saying that.
◧◩◪◨
4. echoan+Z21[view] [source] 2025-04-24 06:58:45
>>rafram+Mj
Are fonts really programs? Is a digital image file also a program?

A font file is more like a config that’s used by your OS to render something, there’s no real interactivity in fonts (except some ligatures but those are just static tables, right?).

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. rafram+xD1[view] [source] 2025-04-24 13:04:37
>>echoan+Z21
TrueType, which has been around since the 80s, includes a full Turing-complete instruction set for hinting: https://developer.apple.com/fonts/TrueType-Reference-Manual/...
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. NoMore+x12[view] [source] 2025-04-24 15:06:00
>>rafram+xD1
This is sophistry. Does anyone write apps in ttf? Can I download a calendar app? Has anyone even cranked out some proof of concept?

Fonts aren't software in any meaningful sense of the word.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. wizzwi+uy2[view] [source] 2025-04-24 18:15:10
>>NoMore+x12
https://www.coderelay.io/fontemon.html
[go to top]