Nick Sherman

Some interesting backstory on @atypi’s “Moral Code”, part of @johndberry’s ongoing ATypI research:
https://johndberry.com/atypi-history/le-code-moral/

It isn’t mentioned there but the Moral Code was how Bitstream justified their practice in the 1980s of making digital copies of other companies’ typefaces. At the time, the Code basically said you must apply for a license to adapt a typeface from another company, but if you are denied it’s moral to do it anyway when the typeface is 15 years old.

Those were different times.

Le Code Moral | John D. Berry

Oct 16 at 9:53pmWeb
Show threadNick ShermanOct 16

@atypi @johndberry … To fully understand ATypI’s old Moral Code, and why someone as respected as Matthew Carter would be copying typefaces without the blessing of the original publishers, it helps to understand the landscape of the type industry in the early 1980s. It’s a long story.

But back then, and still today, there’s little legal protection in the USA for the look and feel of a typeface. A font’s name and digital data can be protected, but much still relies on industry norms and morals.

Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 16
@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry Or alternatively, saying they were not making a font. Instead they were making "Portable Font Resources" which, clearly, were totally not fonts. 🤔
Show threadNick ShermanOct 16
@svgeesus @atypi @johndberry Oh, I don’t think I know this story! Is that something specifically related to Bitstream and/or ATypI?
Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 16

@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry Bitstream. In the late 90s they were marketing a technology called PFR which basically executed a font, creating a per-glyph bitmap which was then curve fitted to make a new glyph in their totally-not-a-font and thus, they claimed, any font license on the original font did not apply.

They licensed it to Netscape who used it in Netscape Navigator 4.x browsers.

It was dropped when Netscape was rewritten to make Firefox, because of the Bitstream license.

Show threadNick ShermanOct 16
@svgeesus @atypi @johndberry Interesting! And it utilized font data without the blessing of the font publishers? Now I’m curious to read more about that. I’m guessing there would have been legal issues with that.
Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 16
@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry Yes, 💯 exactly.
Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 16
@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3073
RFC 3073: Portable Font Resource (PFR) - application/font-tdpfr MIME Sub-type Registration

This document describes the registration of the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) sub-type application/font-tdpfr. The encoding is defined by the PFR Specification. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

IETF Datatracker
Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 16
@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry https://www.w3.org/Printing/chase.html
Web Printing

Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 16
@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry "Property rights - The outline descriptions in the font file are the intellectual property of the creator. While displaying the resulting glyphs when rendering a document with the font is clearly legal (otherwise, the font is of little use), the legality of embedding a font within a document depends entirely on the license granted by the creator. "
Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 16
@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry "Legal concerns can be eliminated by recording the shapes generated by the font on the authoring system, thus assuring that the font has been legally rendered. "
Show threadNick ShermanOct 16

@svgeesus @atypi @johndberry Ah this is related to TrueDoc! I do know about that but just wasn’t familiar with the Portable Font Resource part.

Incidentally, the registration in that first link you sent was written by my old boss, John Collins! My first job out of school was at Bitstream, working as the first full-time designer for MyFonts (before they were bought by Monotype).

Kinda funny now to compare and contrast the TrueDoc / PFR stuff with the final results of @​font-face and woff.

Show threadErikOct 17
@nicksherman @svgeesus @atypi @johndberry TrueDoc was pretty evil.
Show threadErikOct 17
@nicksherman @svgeesus @atypi @johndberry It re-vectorised bitmaps, didn’t it.
Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 17
@letterror @nicksherman @atypi @johndberry yes
Show threadTiro TypeworksOct 16

@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry

Some missing context on the decision to ditch the Code Morale in 2004:

Cynthia Batty had been working on getting ATypI official non-profit status in the US, and I had been working on the possibilty of ATypI evolving into a standards organisation that could coordinate industry involvement in font formats, character encoding, and Web standards. The Code Morale was identified as problematic for these initiatives because it made ATypI look like a cartel.

Show threadTiro TypeworksOct 16

@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry

The biggest push to review and reform the ATypI statutes came from Adobe’s legal department. Someone I had been talking with at Adobe suggested that maybe the association might become responsible for the OpenType format specification, so ran the idea past their lawyers. The lawyers looked over the ATypI statutes and said ‘This is a cartel; we can’t have anything to do with it.’

Show threadNick ShermanOct 16
@TiroTypeworks @atypi @johndberry Interesting! Do you think it was a good decision to drop the Code even though ATypI never really became that kind of standards organization in the end anyway?
Show threadTiro TypeworksOct 16

@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry

I think dropping the Code, as it was, was necessary and a good thing. It was really an artifact of an earlier industrial model of organisation, and didn’t make much sense in the context of hundreds of small independent foundries. ATypI didn’t evolve into a standards organisation, but it did evolve, away from a business/professional organisation and more towards an academic/research conference organiser.

Show threadTiro TypeworksOct 16

@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry

I’ve spoken with some people who think the Code should not have been simply dropped but replaced by some kind of code of professional conduct.

The problem I always had with the idea of ATypI as a ‘professional association’ is that no one could tell me what the profession was. People who designed typefaces? People who manufactured fonts? People who sold fonts? People who used fonts? They were all represented in the ATypI membership, along with non-professionals.

Show threadTiro TypeworksOct 16

@nicksherman @atypi @johndberry

ATypI does have a code of conduct now, but it is focused on behaviour at ATypI events and general respect for other people.

https://atypi.org/about-atypi/rules-regulations/code-of-conduct/

It says nothing about specific professional conduct relating to the type business, e.g. copying typeface designs, unlicensed font use, etc. So far as I know, this code of conduct is not part of the association statutes, in the way the old Code was.

Code of conduct - ATypI

ATypI