Nick ShermanOct 16

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

Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
@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. 🤔
Oct 16 at 10:32pmWeb
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