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 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿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 threadErik
@nicksherman @svgeesus @atypi @johndberry It re-vectorised bitmaps, didn’t it.
Oct 17 at 7:05amWeb
Show threadChris Lilley 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Oct 17
@letterror @nicksherman @atypi @johndberry yes