I was wondering about that exact same thing.. in fact I wrote a post asking something similar already..
I doubt you could blatantly just rename fonts, but I think you'd be in the clear if you looked at the font and made your own version
From the link.. However, scalable fonts are, in the opinion of the Copyright Office, computer programs, and as such are copyrightable:
Aren't all font's basically scalable? I not sure how they decide which fonts are scalable and which aren't.. also how do they call them computer programs?
I was under the (perhaps flawed) assumption that one couldn't copyright a font, but could copyright the name, which is why pc's and mac's and other systems all have basically identical fonts with totally different names.
Also, if when you purchase a font, you can produce printed works with it, whats to say you can't embed it in webpages. Fonts afterall are designed for presentation, otherwise why would people pay for them in the first place. Whats it matter wether the presentation is in print on the web instead of in a magazine.
Actually, if it were a gift, they could do even less. Gifts can't legally have conditions applied or they aren't gifts but instead are just consideration for some kind of contract.
not really.. the reply by rupert is more fitting and either way.. its not like you aren't giving them credit, unless you disguising which site you linking to and claiming the content as entirely your own.
Yes, but you can't just make a physical object non-transferrable.. They didn't loan it to me, and I'm sure there is some sort of agreement inside, but the first sale doctrine says I can sell it.
I'm just saying you can do the media shifting yourself, but they aren't entitled to do it for you or make it easier.. I'm agreeing with you.. chill out..
Whats funny is the first time I didn't even notice who I was replying to.
They can think of it all they want, but that doesn't make why they tell you true.
For instance, I went to a.net launch at a college and they gave me a bag with a copy of windows XP, and Vis Studio.NET Acedemic Edition, then later, they sent me an email saying I couldn't sell that stuff. I didn't agree to any license, end user or otherwise. They can't do jack if I turn around and sell the still sealed copies of the software.
If you buy a computer with software preinstalled on it, unless you sign a document otherwise, you are buying it as it is. You didn't agree to anything, you bought a computer.
Doctrine of first sale. You do own that copy of the software, the company sold it to you on a cd. You bought it and you can use it for its designed purpose within the limits of copyright law. Its not a hard concept to understand, software companies would just like you to believe otherwise. Think about books, its the same concept, you can read a book and give it away or sell it, but you can't photocopy the whole thing and give it to your friend.
For some bogus eula to be valid, you'd have to read and sign it before buying the software.. thats how some IA business get screwed over, they bundle some agreement with their iopener wannabe device, but don't tell circuit city about it, so consumers go and buy it for the hardware and never bother to activate the pay service.
But you are entitled to the ability to media-shift said book on your own. Just like you can copy a CD to a tape legally (for your own use blah blah blah) you can copy a book.
Yes, but they aren't entitled to give you a pdf of the book.. if you want to media shift, break out a scanner and media shift from a deadtree to a pdf.
we don't have a TV either so... Anyways, we watch wrestling taped by a friend of ours, and get our Anime DVDs/VCDs from our obscure anime junkie friends.
If you don't have a tv how do you watch your taped wrestling and anime dvds?
yeh I remember having to fix many a gi-joe because someone thought it would be fun to wind them up and watch their legs spin around.. only problem was if you used too big of a rubber band to fix them their legs would wobble around..
first they'd have to pass a law saying they didn't have to follow the eula that came with the software.. but since its a state and millions of dollars im sure that won't take too long..
In one case, the audit found that Logicon's $3.6 million estimate of how much the state spent in one year on software maintenance was overstated by $3.2 million. This figure and others were used to bolster claims of the state's potential savings.
The disparity "raises the question that Logicon may have misled the state," the audit says.
Raises the question?? I think it pretty much answers the question with a resounding yes..
If you're used to it, it really rarely bothers you at all, because usually when you're waiting for it, you're waiting for it, not switching to do something else - and (at least with well-behaved apps) if it's gonna take longer than a couple seconds, the app will relenquish control anyway.
Continuing to get further and further offtopic...
But, yeh.. this is generally what people mean when they say macos can't multitask.. task switching is not multitasking..
Mac people who are generally artists and secretaries and such aren't generally bothered by this, but people that are used to being a little more productive with computers are totally annoyed by this..
Also, the cooperative multitasking model is generally consider by everyone to be a horrible model for multitasking because it leaves multitasking up to the programs. And most programs aren't good about giving up the resources they have accumulated. In every other commonly used os with the exception of the preX macos's the os takes care of assigning resources and unassigning them.. thats why several apps can run at once and actually run as opposed to macOS where basically only the app on top can be interacted with and used and it takes quite awhile upon switching before a new app becomes useful..
Basically Apple, upon switching to the method that everyone else has used for years, has all but admitted that they were wrong and stupid for using the less productive method they've used for ever..
I find this kinda surprising and somewhat disappointing since IBM has always been at the forefront of harddrive technology, designing the technology that many of the other manufactorers use. Still.. maybe the whole deathstar thing was a wakeup call showing that IBM has lost their game a little.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering about that exact same thing.. in fact I wrote a post asking something similar already..
I doubt you could blatantly just rename fonts, but I think you'd be in the clear if you looked at the font and made your own version
From the link..
However, scalable fonts are, in the opinion of the Copyright Office, computer programs, and as such are copyrightable:
Aren't all font's basically scalable? I not sure how they decide which fonts are scalable and which aren't.. also how do they call them computer programs?
I was under the (perhaps flawed) assumption that one couldn't copyright a font, but could copyright the name, which is why pc's and mac's and other systems all have basically identical fonts with totally different names.
Also, if when you purchase a font, you can produce printed works with it, whats to say you can't embed it in webpages. Fonts afterall are designed for presentation, otherwise why would people pay for them in the first place. Whats it matter wether the presentation is in print on the web instead of in a magazine.
Actually, if it were a gift, they could do even less. Gifts can't legally have conditions applied or they aren't gifts but instead are just consideration for some kind of contract.
silence is not legal acceptance so if you don't agree to the eula you aren't agreeing to it.
not really.. the reply by rupert is more fitting and either way.. its not like you aren't giving them credit, unless you disguising which site you linking to and claiming the content as entirely your own.
Yeh.. I just use the shrinkwrapper at work for the same purpose.
Yes, but you can't just make a physical object non-transferrable.. They didn't loan it to me, and I'm sure there is some sort of agreement inside, but the first sale doctrine says I can sell it.
who modded you up anyway?
I'm just saying you can do the media shifting yourself, but they aren't entitled to do it for you or make it easier.. I'm agreeing with you.. chill out..
Whats funny is the first time I didn't even notice who I was replying to.
They can think of it all they want, but that doesn't make why they tell you true.
.net launch at a college and they gave me a bag with a copy of windows XP, and Vis Studio .NET Acedemic Edition, then later, they sent me an email saying I couldn't sell that stuff. I didn't agree to any license, end user or otherwise. They can't do jack if I turn around and sell the still sealed copies of the software.
For instance, I went to a
If you buy a computer with software preinstalled on it, unless you sign a document otherwise, you are buying it as it is. You didn't agree to anything, you bought a computer.
"so how was i too know that distrubuting it to all my internet friends was actually illegal?"
That would be illegal under copyright law, not because you didn't agree to the eula agreement.
Doctrine of first sale. You do own that copy of the software, the company sold it to you on a cd. You bought it and you can use it for its designed purpose within the limits of copyright law. Its not a hard concept to understand, software companies would just like you to believe otherwise. Think about books, its the same concept, you can read a book and give it away or sell it, but you can't photocopy the whole thing and give it to your friend.
For some bogus eula to be valid, you'd have to read and sign it before buying the software.. thats how some IA business get screwed over, they bundle some agreement with their iopener wannabe device, but don't tell circuit city about it, so consumers go and buy it for the hardware and never bother to activate the pay service.
But you are entitled to the ability to media-shift said book on your own. Just like you can copy a CD to a tape legally (for your own use blah blah blah) you can copy a book.
Yes, but they aren't entitled to give you a pdf of the book.. if you want to media shift, break out a scanner and media shift from a deadtree to a pdf.
Its really not that hard to use outlook and not be effected by viri.. just some people are stupid..
we don't have a TV either so...
Anyways, we watch wrestling taped by a friend of ours, and get our Anime DVDs/VCDs from our obscure anime junkie friends.
If you don't have a tv how do you watch your taped wrestling and anime dvds?
yeh I remember having to fix many a gi-joe because someone thought it would be fun to wind them up and watch their legs spin around.. only problem was if you used too big of a rubber band to fix them their legs would wobble around..
considering Jim Henson died a few years ago.. RedHat must have some crazy voodoo magick or something..
Offtopic?
Yes.
Hell, I gotta 133mhz sitting here. Gimme 50 bucks for it.
how bout $30 plus shipping?
Sometimes the right tool for the job is not Linux on a computer system.
yeh a windows computer could do this just fine using software easily retrieved from download.com or any similar freeware site.
I was just replying to the parent post, not speculating who actually paid for the internet.
Go ahead and complain about how high taxes are, but do you think you'd be reading /. right now if ARPA had never existed?
yes.. if it wasn't the military it would have been more the universitys
first they'd have to pass a law saying they didn't have to follow the eula that came with the software.. but since its a state and millions of dollars im sure that won't take too long..
In one case, the audit found that Logicon's $3.6 million estimate of how much the state spent in one year on software maintenance was overstated by $3.2 million. This figure and others were used to bolster claims of the state's potential savings.
The disparity "raises the question that Logicon may have misled the state," the audit says.
Raises the question?? I think it pretty much answers the question with a resounding yes..
If you're used to it, it really rarely bothers you at all, because usually when you're waiting for it, you're waiting for it, not switching to do something else - and (at least with well-behaved apps) if it's gonna take longer than a couple seconds, the app will relenquish control anyway.
Continuing to get further and further offtopic...
But, yeh.. this is generally what people mean when they say macos can't multitask.. task switching is not multitasking..
Mac people who are generally artists and secretaries and such aren't generally bothered by this, but people that are used to being a little more productive with computers are totally annoyed by this..
Also, the cooperative multitasking model is generally consider by everyone to be a horrible model for multitasking because it leaves multitasking up to the programs. And most programs aren't good about giving up the resources they have accumulated. In every other commonly used os with the exception of the preX macos's the os takes care of assigning resources and unassigning them.. thats why several apps can run at once and actually run as opposed to macOS where basically only the app on top can be interacted with and used and it takes quite awhile upon switching before a new app becomes useful..
Basically Apple, upon switching to the method that everyone else has used for years, has all but admitted that they were wrong and stupid for using the less productive method they've used for ever..
I find this kinda surprising and somewhat disappointing since IBM has always been at the forefront of harddrive technology, designing the technology that many of the other manufactorers use. Still.. maybe the whole deathstar thing was a wakeup call showing that IBM has lost their game a little.