Typophile - PC Office Fonts for my Mac? - Comments

Still, you could argue that

DanGayle — Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:27:15 -0800

Still, you could argue that FB (or MS) could lose out on the potential revenue from the sale of a (hypothetical) OT version of Californian. Weak?
But isn’t that the point? They’ve already sold it, because I already have it. Why would I buy another? (So that I wouldn’t have to program anything myself, I suppose.)

Of course, the leasor can

John Nolan — Sun, 3 Dec 2006 09:53:59 -0800

Of course, the leasor can offer terms, and the leasee can decline - that’s how EULAs work. But I agree Dan, it feels like a victimless crime.

Still, you could argue that FB (or MS) could lose out on the potential revenue from the sale of a (hypothetical) OT version of Californian. Weak?

Fair use and interoperability provisions may come in to all this as well, but a Google search reveals these points to be fairly moot, at least in the U.S. You can also Google “contracts of adhesion” if you’re in to it!

Any one else care to argue?

Oops. My bad again. Hoefler,

DanGayle — Sun, 3 Dec 2006 08:53:03 -0800

Oops. My bad again. Hoefler, Frere-Jones, please forgive me.

But the typeface is mighty fine, just the same. It’s a little slower using since I have to set glyphs by hand if I want the extras, but I like it nonetheless.

So am I clear that I can’t add OT tables to them? Not even for educational use? I think under Fair Use laws I can almost get away with anything as a student. Legally.

But does it actually matter? I’m not reselling or redistributing, just modifying for my own use. Like Bringhurst recommends :)

Ha! David saw the same

Miss Tiffany — Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:36:40 -0800

Ha! David saw the same loophole that I did.

Dan, I didn’t notice it before, but Hightower was designed by Tobias Frere-Jones while he was with Font Bureau.

We cooked the ingredients,

Nick Shinn — Sat, 2 Dec 2006 16:53:16 -0800

We cooked the ingredients, MS set the tables.

Nice one Dave ;-)

“b. Font Components. While

dberlow — Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:02:50 -0800

“b. Font Components. While the software (Windows Vista) is running, you may use its fonts to display and print content.”

That sounds like it’s okay then, (to use the fonts on the Mac). I mean, Windows is *always* running somewhere isn’t it?;)

These publisher fonts were the last MS released that work on the Mac and Windows “equally”, so I’m not surprised people want ’em.

“High Tower is Hoefler’s version of Jenson” :-o Say what!?

Unfortunately, when those FB fonts were distributed for Publisher (a long time ago as you’ll see), there were no tools for making OT tables and there were no applications that supported features, so we were only able to make sure the glyphs were there to do a few nice things, but not all of them. We cooked the ingredients, MS set the tables.

I would say, yes, reverse

Miss Tiffany — Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:47:01 -0800

I would say, yes, reverse engineering (etc., also known as modifications) is seen as adding features.

So does adding features to

DanGayle — Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:07:51 -0800

So does adding features to the software constitute reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling the Software, especially as it pertains to font software?

for anyone interested there

mike_duggan — Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:58:57 -0800

for anyone interested there is a trial download of Office 2007 available.

http://us7.trymicrosoftoffice.com/default.aspx?culture=en-US

Fonts are software. Both

sii — Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:56:21 -0800

Fonts are software. Both technically and with respect to the EULA.

Cheers, So

Dan, does this EULA you keep

Miss Tiffany — Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:47:53 -0800

Dan, does this EULA you keep quoting use the word “modification” anywhere?

So the MS EULA covers the FB

DanGayle — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:48:29 -0800

So the MS EULA covers the FB EULA?

Microsoft Office Pro 2003 EULA

4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

As far as I can tell this is the only mention of editing the software itself.

Repeating part of Section 1.5:

The Software may include certain photographs, clip art, shapes, animations, sounds, music and video clips that are identified in the Software for your use (together “Media Elements”). You may copy and modify the Media Elements...

I don’t know if that applies to fonts at all though.

>I just downloded the Office

sii — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:52:00 -0800

>I just downloded the Office 2003 EULA and the word “font” isn’t even mentioned.

True, font specific information is only included in our most recent EULAs and mostly just authorizes things that people did any-way like embedding and printer-downloading.

Cheers, Si

It would be even better

paul d hunt — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:05:43 -0800

It would be even better practice if you drew the glyphs too.

this is the reason i’m partial to the LTC Californian... although it doesn’t have additional weights (yet) or italic small caps like the FB version does. i’ll hafta start working on that...

WRT embedding we try to

sii — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:33:11 -0800

WRT embedding we try to negotiate ’editable’ rights for our customers.

Cheers, Si

PC Office Fonts for my Mac?

DanGayle — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:00:39 -0800

All of this talk about the new Office fonts has me wondering, if I have Office Pro 2003 on my PC, does the license allow me to put it’s fonts on my Mac? My feeling says NO, but my want for Font Bureau typefaces on my Mac says YES.

Someone please say yes?