I don't know about you, but I've got a bunker in my backyard, should one of the many planes/weather balloons/rocketships fall out of the sky. I figure this should do just fine for that.
It's 'lifting gas', as in, gas that lifts.
Y'know, like 'running man', or 'overreacting slashdotter'.
"...utilizing proprietary overracting slashdotter technology, the publicist was able to create a buzz about his software in a matter of minutes"
"A huge difference between this and modifying GPL code is that it is impossible to argue that a document is a derivative work of the font it was printed in...from A and B we can conclude..."
Sure, a text file is probably not going to be a derivative of the font, but how about a logo, or a poster layout, or an advertisement? In graphic design, at least in my experience, it would be very easy to argue that the final design itself is a derivative of the style of the font.
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but the printed document doesn't 'include' the font any more than a painting 'includes' the subject matter of the painting....actually, reading that, I think I see what you mean. It's like distributing a photograph of a copyrighted object/design - legally, you don't own the copyright, etc. I suppose that would extend further into music and others as well.
Okay, that makes sense. What *doesn't* make sense, however, is someone GPL'ing their fonts.
By printing a document, you're not releasing the font in any way - aside from someone 'reverse engineering' the font from the document (i.e. tracing/scanning/etc), there is no way they have the font itself. What you're distributing is the results of *you* using the font, not the ability for others to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
"In my opinion, the media is interested because there is potential that this could cause big changes in telecommunications."
and
"This shows his belief in what we are trying to achieve - the ideas he came up with are allowing us to make this work." Seems pretty sensical to me.
I don't know about you, but I've got a bunker in my backyard, should one of the many planes/weather balloons/rocketships fall out of the sky. I figure this should do just fine for that.
It's 'lifting gas', as in, gas that lifts. Y'know, like 'running man', or 'overreacting slashdotter'. "...utilizing proprietary overracting slashdotter technology, the publicist was able to create a buzz about his software in a matter of minutes"
"A huge difference between this and modifying GPL code is that it is impossible to argue that a document is a derivative work of the font it was printed in. ..from A and B we can conclude..."
Sure, a text file is probably not going to be a derivative of the font, but how about a logo, or a poster layout, or an advertisement? In graphic design, at least in my experience, it would be very easy to argue that the final design itself is a derivative of the style of the font.
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but the printed document doesn't 'include' the font any more than a painting 'includes' the subject matter of the painting. ...actually, reading that, I think I see what you mean. It's like distributing a photograph of a copyrighted object/design - legally, you don't own the copyright, etc. I suppose that would extend further into music and others as well.
Okay, that makes sense. What *doesn't* make sense, however, is someone GPL'ing their fonts.
By printing a document, you're not releasing the font in any way - aside from someone 'reverse engineering' the font from the document (i.e. tracing/scanning/etc), there is no way they have the font itself. What you're distributing is the results of *you* using the font, not the ability for others to use it.
I think you mean "screenshots *are* not valid..."