[OS X TeX] gtamacfonts ligatures: PDF searchability
will.adams at frycomm.com
Wed Mar 29 07:29:41 EST 2006
On Mar 29, 2006, at 3:35 AM, Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
> Given that I'm one of the authors of gtamacfonts, I feel that I
> have to respond to this thread, although I have the impression that
> this discussion is not very fruitful. I am somewhat disturbed by
> William Adams's attacks, and I really feel that this is FUD. This
> is not helping anybody. Please excuse me if I take some of his
> allegations one by one and answer them.
> 1. "At a guess the gtamacfonts package converts the fonts in some way,
> munging the encoding which causes the difficulty you see"
> This is patent nonsense. You can try this yourself: take a tool
> like fontforge. Convert a font (say Baskerville) to otf. Adjust
> the mapfile accordingly so it will now embed the otf font instead
> of the ttf (and run updmap if you're using LaTeX). Now copying from
> a pdf will work flawlessly. The reason this difficulty crops up is
> precisely because we did not want to convert the fonts and did not
> want to violate Apple's license.
Okay, how's this.
The gtamacfonts package modifes a .dfont, reducing it to that portion
which should constitute a valid .ttf --- but, because Apple has
removed tables from them, the font doesn't work right, which
apparently is how Apple wants it.
> 2. "So you're converting from a Mac format .dfont to a set of .ttf
> by extracting them."
> Yes, that's the same kind of "conversion" that's taking place when
> you unwrap your new computer and put it on your desk.
But the .dfont doesn't stand in for the .ttf, nor vice versa --- it
is a modification of how the font is packaged and Apple's license
> 3. "Apple licensed these
> fonts from their designers for use in and within Mac OS X --- TeX
> isn't bundled w/ Mac OS X, so it's unreasonable to expect that they
> should work with TeX."
> We all know that we're exposed to a lot of marketing BS and a lot
> of lawyer BS. Marketing people will sell you a shiny computer and
> tell you that it can do just anything you want. Then the lawyers'
> fine print will tell you that you should not expect it to work with
> any software but the stuff that came bundled with it. I pity people
> who have to make a living doing stuff like this. And I think very
> strongly that we should not let this kind of twisted thinking enter
> into this list. It is unreasonable to claim that fonts should only
> work with the software that came bundled with OS X. Period.
I didn't say that they should only work with bundled software, but
tried to point out that the intent was that the fonts would be used
without modification (per the license) and that the prevalent way to
do this is by way of the APIs in Mac OS X.
Why don't you file a bug report with Apple and ask them to fix the
fonts as bundled so your technique will work?
> 4. "if you want to use Hoefler Text w/o XeTeX's limitations,
> then license the Type 1 version from www.typography.com --- if you
> don't want to do that, then pony up some money to pay to suport
> development efforts to improve XeTeX and its support."
> The logic of this sentence escapes me completely.
Belike, none of this would be an issue if there were no limitations
to the use of XeTeX. Apparently this will be improving shortly.
> 5. "Try that argument w/ a bookstore after you've purchased the hard-
> cover and want a paperback copy to take w/ you to read when
> Analogies are always dangerous, but this one is so obviousy flawed
> that it's just used as a rhetorical stick to beat people who hold
> different opinions. If I purchase a book in hardcover and then
> wrap it in a different cover myself or have this done by a
> bookbinder, I don't have to pay amazon for the book a second time.
> It takes 5 seconds to convert a font to a different format.
> We have explicitly not done this and do explicitly not encourage
> people to do it; nevertheless, it is a difficult question whether
> this is fair use. Unpacking a .dfont format into the .ttf files
> that are part of it is definitely not a font conversion, IMHO.
But it is a modification of the file.
> 6. "I've posted the relevant bits of Apple's license here in the
> past ---
> I'd suggest reviewing it w/ a lawyer if you don't believe me."
> This is pure intimidation, nothing else. Copyright laws are
> different across the world, and what is true in the US may not be
> true in Germany, where I reside.
I'd be surprised if Apple's licensing agreement is not the same ---
granted the legal interpretation will vary by court, but it almost
certainly says, ``no modification'' or a reasonable translation thereof.
> 7. "Linotype at least very graciously offers an up-grade (including
> different versions, one specifically for Mac OS X compatibility) of
> Zapfino, so I think it's reprehensible to not accept such."
> You're constantly flip-flopping between legal and ethical
> arguments. This is just obfuscating the issues.
What's legal is necessary only because people must be constrained to
that which is right. I believe that people should only do that which
is right, regardless any legal framework.
> To sum up: I still think that making these system fonts available
> does not violate any license. William is so unrelenting about this
> issue that I get the impression he has some axe to grind, and i
> think discussion would be easier if we knew what this axe is. If
> you think this approach is a bad idea, don't use it.
I have no axe to grind. I simply believe that designers have the
right to control how their works are distributed and the license
under which they are used.
> But please refrain from browbeating others into sharing your point
> of view.
Please refrain from ad hominem.
I have done nothing here but put forward my opinion and the facts ---
that some people find this inconvenient or unpleasant doesn't change
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:25 AM, Bruno Voisin wrote:
>> Actually I quite agree with the position of the Adobe blogger
>> referenced earlier in this thread <http://blogs.adobe.com/
Irrelevant, since the fonts in question aren't licensed from Adobe.
I haven't said that it'd be wrong to contact Apple to persuade them
to contact Linotype &co. and ask them to alter the license under
which the fonts are distributed. I think it's a bad idea 'cause if
successful, it would probably mean that they'll want more money
though, so either Apple will earn less (absorbing the cost) or Macs
and Mac OS X upgrades will cost a bit more (one of the reasons
NeXTstep was so expensive was the expense of licensing the software
bundle --- the $299 educational version was about break-even to cover
the costs of the Pantone, Display PostScript and other licenses).
senior graphic designer
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain information
which is confidential and intended only for the addressee(s). If you are
not the intended recipient(s), any usage, dissemination, disclosure, or
action taken in reliance on it is prohibited. The reliability of this
method of communication cannot be guaranteed. Email can be intercepted,
corrupted, delayed, incompletely transmitted, virus-laden, or otherwise
affected during transmission. Reasonable steps have been taken to reduce
the risk of viruses, but we cannot accept liability for damage sustained
as a result of this message. If you have received this message in error,
please immediately delete it and all copies of it and notify the sender.
------------------------- Info --------------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
& FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/
More information about the MacOSX-TeX