Adobe has made some of their OT feature coding available for developers to look at. Thomas (I think) posted a link to the feature source for Bickham Script Pro on Typophile a while back, but the page seems to have gone missing.

It’s okay with me if you want to peek at the OT feature code in Proxima Nova (which I know you have). Keep in mind, though, that FontLab does not have access to the source code. The code that is put into the fonts is compiled, so it must decompile it when it opens the font. Because of this, classes will have generic, numbered names and the feature coding will not necessarily make a lot of sense to human eyes. It also may not recompile.

Mark,
Thanks! I will take a peek under the hood of Proxima Nova :-)
It doesn’t matter about the class names. I am mostly looking for correct syntax, when to use ’ vs “, when to place lookup, space or no space, class swapping—an extension of the OT sessions you, Nick, Thomas, and Adam gave in New York.
I am having a battle with denom/nom and am trying to figure out how to have my font generate fractions other than the usual few. I figure it would be easier for me to look under the hood of other types than keep pestering everyone here online with “how do I do this” every week.

ChrisL

OT_How-To
The links to the Adobe Code samples should be in there.

oh and FLS5 makes recompiled coding a lot easier to read than previous versions.

and here’s adobe’s released fraction feature code:
follow this link

I’m picturing Dennis Hopper in “Blue Velvet”:
“Don’t look at me! DON’T YOU LOOK AT ME, BITCH!!!”

Chris, really now.
You’re starting to sound like Tiffany.

hhp

“Chris, really now.
You’re starting to sound like Tiffany.”

But I like Tiffany. She does have actual hair though:-)

I didn’t see the Hopper movie.

ChrisL

Paul,
THANKS! I’ll have to get into this Wikki thing. It never occurs to me to look there :-<

ChrisL

I like Tiffany too! I just think she’s really way too
martyr-like when it comes to font houses. If a EULA
contains “don’t look at me!” I would feel free to smile
and ignore. Ridiculous demands can be made when giving
gifts, but not when the other person is paying for something.
Life is a two-way street, no matter how pervasively certain
governments are more on your side the bigger you are.

Blue Velvet: must, must see. Nothing else like it.

hhp

Ok. Well, Tiffany has her own opinion. =^>

Can she speak for herself?

Even if the EULA states otherwise, it never hurts to ask the foundry. They might actually allow it. However, yes, I do believe that if the EULA states that you cannot look, you shouldn’t.

=^P

This sounds like a straw man being set up to bash on Tiffany. The issue of a graphic designer trying to respect a font makers wishes (regardless of how silly the restrictions might be) and that of a type designer wanting to learn from another designers work by opening their font in FontLab seem totally different.

And as pointed out the ethical question is largely pointless as 90% of the interesting OpenType code has either been posted publicly or is available on request.

Si

The last thing I want to do is bash Tiffany. She has spent many tireless hours without a dime’s payment on the behalf of other type and graphic designers. I applaud her integrity, her selflessness, and her sense of humor.

ChrisL

Sheesh. Don’t do that Dez. :^[ I don’t feel like you were bashing me. I don’t feel like Hrant was either. I just feel that where it is possible for us to do what is right it is important that we do it.

Chris, Simon must have been talking about me.

Recently Tiffany was surprised that people thought they should only abide by the EULA they purchased a font under, and not a stricter EULA that was implemented afterwards... I think that’s extreme - as extreme as a person completely ignoring a EULA. That’s all. Tiffany is a great person - but Chris seems to be inheriting one of her very few flaws! :-)

> it never hurts to ask the foundry.

When it’s a gray area, I totally agree. When you want to get permission for something that the EULA forbids (and expect to pay $ for it) likewise. But to check that the font house doesn’t actually mean something in the EULA? That seems dumb.

The key concept here is Reasonability. I feel that’s what’s required most in human relationships. Making more money is not a Core Value to me. So let me ask: is it reasonable to expect a type designer (especially one doing a faithful revival for example) to pay out amounts to his sources of inspiration?* Likewise, anybody who expects to be able to place unreasonable clauses in a business agreement and get away with it is either nuts or needs to accept that what goes around comes around. Behavior is contagious. Humans are heuristic, while formalism (i.e. a EULA) is not - with the mismatch forcing us to choose between reasonable behavior versus parasitism.

* Never forgetting that creativity never happens in a vacuum.

Neither the vagaries of commerce nor the inspirational convenience of death remove an individual’s responsability to treat his fellow man reasonably. Not selfishly.

hhp

Hrant, you misunderstood my post. I assume you are alluding to my question to the ATypI list. I posted that question specifically to see how foundries would respond. I already knew the answer. To say I was surprise is wrong. I was basically just double-checking myself. I am not a lawyer. I have no hopes of becoming a lawyer. And, I don’t mind asking what could be considered stupid questions in order to get a clear answer.

Until recently, as it happens, there was a rather large foundry who’s EULA did have a clause like that. I need to track down an old copy of it. But, they no longer do that.

I have more flaws that that, Hrant. In fact, if that is a flaw I welcome it. As my other flaws are real flaws and need my attention more urgently.

If anything in a EULA is unreasonable, then a person who might license the type has two choices. Don’t license the type or call the foundry and see if there isn’t another license they can purchase which would allow them to do what they need to do.

On the other hand. If anything in a EULA is unreasonable, then a person who has already licensed the type has two choices. Use a different typeface or call the foundry and see if there isn’t another license they can purchase which would allow them to do what they need to do.

If someone enters into a business deal signing the contract thinking they might make changes to what they think is unreasonable I think they probably deserve whatever happens. If they choose not to enter into conversation before signing and work toward a more reasonable contract then I don’t see why they deserve something more reasonable after the fact.

Yes. THAT is me being hard-nosed. But, I firmly believe in conversation with the foundries before and after the fact.

> I assume you are alluding to my question to the ATypI list.

No, mostly I meant the Linotype/MyFonts thing, on Typophile.
Although on the ATypI list there was in fact a mini version of the
same situation (the one where Adam and Lawrence countered you).

> a person who might license the type has two choices.

Formally, yes. Humanly, the choices are infinite. And a business who ignores the fact that its customers are human is bound to fail, and cause misery along the way. It’s quite simple: unreasonable demands hurt you.

> they probably deserve whatever happens.

1) Same with the font house.
2) Nothing will happen to the user. It’s the font house that suffers more.

But really, I avoid using “deserve”. I’m more interested in making
as many people as happy as possible through simple good decisions.

> I firmly believe in conversation with the foundries

Which is what I’m doing too.

hhp

Here’s something for nut fractions:

feature frac {

sub @FIGURES’ slash by @sups2;
sub slash’ @FIGURES @FIGURES by nut2;
sub @FIGURES @sups2’ nut2 by @sups;
sub slash by nut;
sub [nut2 nut] @FIGURES’ by @sinf;
sub @sups2’ nut by @sups;
sub @FIGURES’ @sups2 by @sups;
sub @sinf @FIGURES’ by @sinf;
sub @sups @sups2’ by @sups;

} frac

***

It uses scientific inferiors and superiors, rather than the larger numerators and denominators.

The “nut” glyph is a horizontal bar for single-digit denominators.
the “nut2” glyph is a horizontal bar for double-digit denominators
@sups2 is an alternate set of scientific superiors with extra sidebearing width, to sit centred on top of double-digit denominators.

The trick is negative sidebearings on the nuts. You can quote me on that.

This works for fractions from 0/0 to 99/99.
It won’t do “fractions” where the numerator is larger than the denominator, but those aren’t fractions, are they? (although such larger values are used in ratios).
More complex nut fractions may still be made with this feature in InD, doing them as two separate fractions back-kerned together.

Font EULAs are not written for people like Chris, or Hrant or me. They’re written for people like Tiffany - people who want to just get on and do their job, set text, embed fonts in PDFs, work from home or the road and in rare cases modify a font.

So the EULAs won’t adequately deal with the type of research that Chris would like to do. Asking the designer is the most ethical answer. But opening fonts in FontLab in the privacy of your own home and not bragging about it publicly is the most common.

Type Designers aren’t generally stupid, they know that FontLab and other tools reveal the inner-workings of their fonts, so you can’t, with a straight face, claim these routines as a trade secret. No EULA is going to stop people from learning techniques in published fonts. Increasingly I think designers and foundries realize this and have become more open about sharing their ideas - this forum is a testament to that.

That’s not to say a unique approach or piece of OT code isn’t protectable. If you don’t publish the fonts just the results (the new PLINC project might fall into this bucket) then your trade secrets could be kept secret. Likewise, say if House felt that the Ed Interlock code was novel they could try for patent protection. But I just don’t think putting a “don’t look” clause in a EULA is helpful.

... and what I’m doing too.

Yes, ok. I wasn’t as informed at that point. I’m still feeling my way through all of this. I am human after all.

Right, there are infinite possibilities. But what is morally or ethically responsible limits you a little, doesn’t it? Or maybe I’m just being naive again assuming people try to do what they want done to them.

Right. The foundry does suffer the most. Unless the company is stupid enough to include a font on a collateral CD for all of its franchises without properly licensing the typeface ... or something else insanely stupid like that.

I can’t decide if we are on the same side of the fence just standing far apart or not.

> Font EULAs are not written for people like Chris, or Hrant or me.

Exactly.

> They’re written for people like Tiffany

No, Tiffany is an exteme case.

I think font EULAs are generally intended to cover as many people as possible. My contention is that they can only ever really work for other companies, not [most] individuals. A big chunk of font customers are ill-served by the entire concept of a EULA.

We need a parallel document.

> No EULA is going to stop people from learning techniques in published fonts.

I agree.
But Tiffany points out that there was one that tried.

> I wasn’t as informed at that point.

Wait, I meant just via discussion lists.
Public laundry being the most... pressing.

> what is morally or ethically responsible limits you a little, doesn’t it?

Indeed. But this is unrelated to Law, or any formalism such as a EULA.

BTW, I don’t see a fence, but a large open field with
hills and valleys. And everything is shades of gray.

hhp

EULAs aside for just a mo’

> keep pestering everyone here online with “how do I do this” every week.

I say keep asking! Your questions could end up helping lots of other folks.

Right! Ask, ask, ask, and ask again.

Tiffany: I would just take the *extreme* lable and run with it. No bungie jump or purple mohawk required. Why yes, I am extreme (dude).

Dez: I figure it would be easier for me to look under the hood of other types than keep pestering everyone here online with “how do I do this” every week.

NO WAY MAN. Easier for you, but not better for everyone. Recording these steps in public dialogue is so much better. Once the community has hashed out the best way, post it up in the Wiki. Each section a walk through of basic OT features. standard ligs, small caps, fractions, Alternate Spacing for caps etc.

I assume you’ve looked at freefontpro (at the fontlab website). Might be just the ticket. That would make all this chatter moot.

Randy

My crosspost above with Eben and Tiff settles it.
Ask in public or be kicked off the island!

R

“Ask in public or be kicked off the island!”

LOL!

ChrisL

PS: I didn’t know “freefontpro” was that sophisticated! Thanks!

Ridiculous demands can be made when giving gifts, but not when the other person is paying for something.

You have this completely backwards. A gift is something freely given and shouldn’t have any conditions attached. When something is purchased, a contractual relationship exists, and it is precisely within such a relationship that conditions and demands may apply. In the case of fonts, it is precisely the license terms that are being purchased. They are, in fact, what is being bought: not the bits and bytes that make up the font but the terms under which it may be used.

Why is it ridiculous for a EULA to say that using the font does not extend to decompiling it and examining the contents? Simply because tools happen to exist that enable this? Or simply because Hrant Papazian has decided that he thinks it is ridiculous?

I don’t have such a clause in any of my EULAs, but if I wanted to have one it would be my right to include it and your right to decline to purchase such terms of use. You have no right at all to purchase precise contractual terms and then just go ahead and take more for yourself. When what is being sold are usage rights, taking additional rights that you have not purchased is as much theft as using an unlicensed copy of a font. Digital media seems to have confused a lot of people about the nature of usage rights, but the model is really identical to that used for photography and traditional illustration. You are buying rights, not a thing that you can use however the heck you feel like using it. Tiffany’s attitude is simply a normal professional one, and is not at all ’extreme’.

Nick,
Thanks for your nutty post!
Until I read further down, I thought you were joking with me! This is a bad habit of mine, I look for jokes in everything. The first guy to name that glyph a “nut” was probably having a little fun of his own :-)

Seriously though, I will be sure to give that code a spin and thanks for posting it!

ChrisL

> The first guy to name that glyph a “nut” was probably having a little fun of his own :-)

I think he/she was being serious - hard to tell ’em’ and ’en’ apart in a noisy press room.

this was on the type quiz at TypeCon a bit of trivia:

en : nut :: em : mutton

no joke!

dez, there’s no way i could answer your questions for you if i hadn’t already asked them myself! :^P

The only thing extreme about Tiffany is that she is extremely helpful to have around. We Bears-in-the-woods here are the ones who gain from her efforts. “You Go Girl!!!”

ChrisL

Where’d you guys go to school? I learned about “nut” and “mutton” in 8th grade. I thought everybody knew that.

School has changed - now it’s classes in PowerPoint and Intelligent Design.

Mark,
I am almost 62 years old. When I went to school a nut was the kid who wore arguile socks with sneakers and mutton was the lousy stew they made in the cafeteria :-)

That’s what I get for going to an inner-city public school. In eighth grade, I did learn how to hot-wire a car though :-)

ChrisL

> You have this completely backwards.

It’s probably a terminological thing with “gift”.

> When something is purchased, a contractual relationship exists

As does a human relationship, money or no.

> Why is it ridiculous for a EULA to say that using the font
> does not extend to decompiling it and examining the contents?

Because it goes against human nature, and in a non-productive way.
Of course this is -necessarily- just my opinion.

> my right to include it and your right to decline

I personally am more concerned with fairness than formal rights.

> Tiffany’s attitude is simply a normal professional one

Professionalism is a fringe human activity. Tiffany’s attitude is super (especially for a font house) but basing a EULA on her behavior is too... romantic.

—

I just realized how ironic this is: you have a font user who is strongly pro-foundry, and then a font maker who is stronly pro-user... Maybe because both of us have a greater desire for fairness than riches.

hhp

Professionalism is a fringe human activity.

But we’re talking about licensing of professional tools. This entire discussion is about a fringe human activity.

All you are expressing is the self-interest of the licensee who wants as much as possible for as little as possible, to which you’ve added your stated intent to take whatever rights you think are reasonable even if you have not paid for them.

The seller of font licenses wants to get as much money as possible and to maintain the ability to make more money, hence limitations on the rights granted by the license.

Obviously the self interest of the licensee and the self interest of the licenser need to be negotiated and to meet somewhere in the middle. But the place where they meet is the point of commerce. That is the only fair place to determine what is acceptable to both parties: the point at which one person says ’I am willing to pay the price asked for this collection of usage rights’ or ’I am not willing to pay the price asked for this collection of usage rights’. And if you decide that you are not willing to pay the price asked, don’t buy the license. Assuming rights that are not yours is as much theft as taking anything else that belongs to someone else.

> I don’t have such a clause in any of my EULAs

So let me ask you: What would you consider to be sensible reasons
for having a no-mod clause in a EULA? And what about a no convert-to-outlines-and-submit-an-EPS-to-a-service-bureau clause?
And lastly, a don’t-look-at-my-code clause?

I’m not asking you to second-guess font houses that have such clauses,
I’d simply like [other people] to hear what you think, as a person.

hhp

> All you are expressing is the self-interest of the licensee

Not at all. That would imply ignoring a EULA outright, or reading it only to evaluate the legal risks (which is what a corporation would do* - and that’s why I say a EULA only makes sense in the corporate sphere) in violating [parts of] it.

* As opposed to an individual.

What I’m expressing is a need for a reasonable balance.

> The seller of font licenses wants to get as much money as possible

Which is exactly the attitude that results in discord.
There must be more.

> That is the only fair place to determine what is acceptable to both parties

Which I think can never be really fair; the human sphere can only be such.

> Assuming rights that are not yours

You keep ignoring the core of my argument.
Not that you MUST agree, but still.

> belongs to someone else.

Nothing ever belongs wholly to one person.
Certainly not something like a Garamond revival.

hhp

I forgot:
> This entire discussion is about a fringe human activity.

No, I think buying stuff and making money from their use is normal; but the idea of “professionalism” over-riding more mainstream human behavior (like looking at something that’s right in front of you) is not.

—

Just to clarify (not least to myself), I am arguing for two things:

1) A reduction in clauses which end up hurting most everybody. I might even come to think the no-mod clause is a necessary evil* (if only because of an alleviation from #2 below); but not the other two I mention above.
2) The implementation of a document parallel to the EULA, something
that would simply communicate the true, human expectations of the font house. This would be a non-binding, non-threatening frank letter of sorts, which helps non-nasties feel comfortable, hence more likely to be amicable... and buy stuff!

* Which is not say everybody should always respect it.

hhp

> This is a bad habit of mine,

Life is too important to be taken seriously — Wilde

Hrant, we’re talking about ownership of rights to a particular product and the licensing of those rights to other parties. You comment about the Garamond revival is completely irrelevant and, worse, a red herring. The question of ownership of design is not being discussed. What is being discussed is ownership of rights to something that has been made and is being licensed. Whether those rights include design rights at all is irrelevant. If I make a digital font, I have certain rights associated with that product irrespective of whether the design is a revival or original, and I can choose to license some or all of these rights, exclusively or non-exclusively, to another party. And those rights definitely do include the right to determine whether or not this product may be decompiled or derivative products made from it. The maker is under no obligation to give you any rights at all beyond those identified in law as fair use, and he can determine what rights he will license to you and at what price. You determine whether or not you are willing to pay that price.

Discussion between licensers and licensees are a really good idea, and this can and does lead to mutually beneficial, negotiated agreements or special arrangements (individualised EULAs). But it all comes back to the point of commerce at some stage: will you pay the asking price for the rights being offered. If you pay the asking price while planning to take more rights than are being offered, you are a swindler. Tiffany isn’t extremist or even more than usually professional, she’s just honest: she knows what she is purchasing and that she doesn’t have a right to more than she is purchasing. Does that make her a freak and her actions contrary to what you have decided is ’human nature’?

I almost hate to jump in on this, but I will. I can’t recall ever seeing a “don’t-look” clause in a font EULA, but I might have seen a “don’t-reverse-engineer” clause, which is much more likely to be in any kind of software EULA (such as a font). Then it’s a matter of interpretation as to whether opening an OT font in FontLab and checking out the OT code constitutes reverse engineering.

That’s why lawyers have jobs. Personally, I would like to say that it does not constitute reverse engineering as long as you are not trying to re-create the particular font with all of its OT behavior. But a lawyer’s take may be very different.

Regards,
tim

Some EULAs do actually say:

” You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, alter, redigitize, convert or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Font Software.”

Quick count from the EULAs I have on my machine, not hunting, which use that phrase or something similar: 15

You freak. ;-P

hhp

I would not be trying to reproduce any font that was not of my own design. It doesn’t even matter what the font looks like or if I even like it. I was only interested in the correct coding methodology and syntax to learn from in the font. I can’t even see myself doing a revival (I would probably change everything too much to be scholarly so I will leave that to others).
I think, with the information I gained on this thread and elsewhere (and with perhaps a few more “asking in public” questions, I can accomplish what I need to. When I am done (in chunks), I will post my OTF feature code here online either for experts to pick apart and tell me where I have erred or for novices to download and use themselves no-strings-attached.

ChrisL

“otherwise attempt to discover the source code”

That seems clear to me.

ChrisL

Chris if this was a photoshop question you would have Linda.com with a course on source coding and the CD’s for training would cost you only…

People will try to make a profit from information, I hope the typophile community will be above this. I think a Typowiki on this subject is in order for you who design type. I use type and purchase licences and don’t care whats under the hood.

“You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, alter, redigitize, convert or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Font Software.”

This is standard boilerplate language from traditional software licenses. The simple act of opening InDesign, typing in notepad, or printing to a PCL printer would cause you to be in breach on one or more of the prohibitions in this clause.

Unfortunately ( or fortunately depending) the code used in open type features could be considered intellectual property - but I wonder if it is even possible to write something in the feature code that isn’t documented already since it NEEDS to be documented in order to work in apps. And if it doesn’t work in Apps then game over - no? Maybe I am oversimplifying.

I guess I am likening it to the rules of grammer. If I can see under the hood of “MacBeth” and learn the rules of grammar but not use it to write a play like Shakespeare’s, am I taking intelectual propertry?

ChrisL

> I wonder if it is even possible to write something in the feature code that isn’t documented already

Nuts: see above.

Nick, but doesn’t it need to be cataloged at one source and not spread around the web?

But do you think that it is ’software’? Do you think you could have ( before you showed us) claimed it as intellectual property? Or are you just using the code in documeneted ways? Or some third path?

So far all the opentype features I have written have been minor extensions/applications of logic using the tools offered. I guess what I am wondering is, where original creation begins in OT feature code.

Anyway, regardless of where that line may exist I hope we keep sharing code. I don’t think there will be/can be special value in it. Special value will come from the application of astute judgement of the eye.

But I guess if the code libraries get bigger that could change in time.

What do you think Nick?

Simon: what should we take away from that?

Chris, coming back to your original post:
> I have seen nothing in the EULAs about it

So are “Tiffany’s 15” and your set entirely exclusive in this regard?

And let’s get a bit picky and hypothetical: let’s say you misread a EULA that contains a “no-look” clause (partly because you’re not a lawyer) and/or you did one of the things Simon listed (because you’re not a software guru). Now let’s say you realize it, and decide it was wrong. You would have to contact the font house and report yourself. They should sue you, right? We’re doing everything by the Book, remember. So do you think that in the US legal system, the party with more/better/more-expensive lawyers has better chances? So is your honest mistake likely to be commensurate with a punishment that the courts and the prosecuting lawyers determine?

But really, I’m not concerned about too much hypothetical stuff, what I mostly would like to know is: do you think a font house should count on such conscientious behavior from an individual when writing a EULA?

hhp

They should sue you, right?

When a cop pulls you over for speeding, and you apologize nicely, and have no traffic record under your driver’s license number, some cops will let you off with a warning. Before they leave, they will say, “drive a little slower next time.”

Similarly, the foundry will say, “thank you for being such an honest customer. Now you know the meaning of the EULA. In the future, please adhere to it.”

Hmmmm... This is a tough one for me personally. I learned a lot about OpenType coding from poking around in existing fonts, and I had a ton of help and advice from colleagues, notably Jeremy Tankard. So I think that there is a lot to be learned from how others have programmed their features.

On the other hand... Our colleague Tal Leming has written some superb and (dare we say it) intelligent OpenType code which I would not dream of borrowing. Tal (and John Butler of Eccentrifuge) are pushing the limits of the technology, and it behooves us to collaborate with them, and pay them for their good work, rather than simply nicking it.

I guess that I see levels to OpenType; Basic OpenType coding is like basic HTML coding; it’s pretty clear and out in the open, and there are ressources out there for working with it. But there are really complex bits of HTML and OpenType coding which are “special”, and which have been developed by really talented people.

I respect anybody’s desire to keep their OpenType feature code private. I recall at least one case with a font I have been using in a demo where the maker was happy for me to demo it, as long as I didn’t show the source code. With regards to Adobe’s own fonts and EULA, our EULA has a clause like the one cited by Tiffany.

That being said, I have posted (with management permission) the following chunks of Adobe OpenType feature code for other developers to reference:
- Minion Pro (2004 rev)
- Bickham Script Pro (2004)
- arbitrary fraction support
- contextual feature code samples

If there’s something else you need in terms of OpenType code examples from Adobe OT fonts, let me know and I should be able to post it.

See: http://www.adobe.com/support/forums/main.html, then click on the “Adobe OpenType FDK Forum” link - the source code stuff is pinned to the top of the forum.

Regards,

T

> When a cop pulls you over for speeding, and you ...

Around here, that’s like a blue moon.
Because they’re basically fundraising.

That said, the traffic law analogy is very good. But it’s better to look at the situation that leads to getting pulled over, not after. :-) For example: running a yellow light is illegal (which most people don’t realize). This gives the police a useful leeway: they won’t pull you over for going through a yellow light if you were like 3 feet away from the line when it changed, but if you really push the limit of the lights, they can stop you (although it’s rare). Another example is that hanging anything from the rear-view mirror is illegal; but it really has to be massive for them to actually enforce the law (and they have to be pretty bored or desperate - not so rare though). Not surprisingly, I’ve been pulled over a lot (including by a drunk cop, who only wanted somebody to yell at, and stormed off afterwards without giving me a ticket) so I know.

Another way it’s a nice analogy is that people pick and choose which laws to follow or break, i suspect generally in a quasi-systematic way. In my case I drive very fast, but I virtually never run red lights, and when I’m racing I don’t abuse the carpool lane. I haven’t hit anything in many years (knock on wood).

So the application of traffic laws is nicely fuzzy. And everybody knows that - it’s an unwritten thing. In our field though there seems to be entirely too much denialism, not to mention a brandishing of the Official Party Line. And I further wonder if it might actually be useful to make our unwritten stuff written (just not in a binding way). This, because unlike drivers and cops, font buyers and foundries should be friends.

> pay them for their good work

Looking does not preclude paying. In the same way that being able to
pirate a font does not prevent some people from paying for them anyway.

The key thing is basically that it can’t be stopped, and using scare tactics
against individuals backfires (although it’s “normal” against companies).

hhp

>I see levels to OpenType; (chester)

Dan, Eben,

Is my nutty little invention intellectual property? Yes, but I have no idea at what level. Probably not very high, if for no other reason than it’s not something there’s much call for. I don’t mind publicizing it, because I’ve already benefited immensely from the feature-sharing generosity of others.

Tom, Adobe would be quite upset if someone were to “pixel-pirate” Bickham’s glyphs, but you seem to be encouraging other foundries to swipe its feature code — what’s the difference?

Our colleague Tal Leming has written some superb and (dare we say it) intelligent OpenType code which I would not dream of borrowing.

what are you referring to? i’d like to know the distinciton between so called “intelligent code” and basic code.

I don’t know about pixel-piracy, but point-piracy of the outlines would certainly call for action. The difference is, we’re explicitly letting people use the feature code. A copyright owner can decide to allow certain kinds of copying or usage, no?

BTW, I don’t think actually swiping the feature code for Bickham Script Pro would be of any use whatsoever, as it is very specific to the set of glyphs and alternates in Bickham. It is, however, useful as an example of how to do complex contextual programming in the FDK/FontLab feature language.

On the other hand, a lot of the feature code for Minion Pro is pretty widely useful as-is. But then again, it is not as difficult to come up with the right solutions for that stuff.

Regards,

T

Paul, I was referring to the work which tal did on Ed Interlock (for House Industries) and Local Gothic (for Orange Italic). Those two fonts have got some very deep and groovy substitution features programmed.

nice. i thought you were referring to Ed Interlock. I wasn’t aware of Local Gothic.

>See: http://www.adobe.com/support/forums/main.html, then click on the

Let’s leave the ethical/legal aspect aside for a moment.

(1) Users may expect that standard features behave in a certain way. Which means, at least these ones have to do the same or similar things — as regards their effect at least.
This may mean, a fraction feature is expected to act like Adobe’s somehow. So the code may be the same or similar, or may be different but deliver the same result (then, to my understanding, it is the same code).
Discussing ethical/legal aspects with regard to standard features seems idle and waste of time.

(2) The practical side.
Mr Phinney wrote, “I don’t think actually swiping the feature code for Bickham Script Pro would be of any use whatsoever, as it is very specific to the set of glyphs and alternates in Bickham.”* This is a crucial point. One cannot just copy some lines of code from one font to another. Different character sets, different classes, different glyph names, &c. Musing about ethics/law is one thing — there are practical limits to that too.
However, I would be irritated if one font would resemble another one in all these aspects.

(3) I wonder which effect it would have if someone declared certain feature behavior to be protected. In fact it’s a play with very few rules. Reserving only few of them would cut off further refinements or novel things that may emerge here and there.

(4) In the end the question is not feature code but type (not font) design. Every typeface requires its own substitution behavior.
As sophisticated as Caflisch Script, Bickham Script, Zapfino, Ed Interlock may be — they must be damned sophisticated** — it is just contextual substitution. It’s the actual design of each of these typefaces which asks for certain feature behavior. Which is not reproducible in another type design.
This is about calt & ssXX features mainly which are by their nature type design centric.

(5) And, the fun is not in repeating something but in adding to it.

* Thanks! I haven’t paid much attention to the OTFDK forum yet.
** Have only seen features of Caflisch Script so far, and presentations for Zapfino and Bickham Script.

Nick,
Scroll way down:

ChrisL

This may mean, a fraction feature is expected to act like Adobe’s somehow.

But even if you test several Adobe Pro fonts, not all the featues work the same across the board. In particular the frac feature.

As sophisticated as Caflisch Script, Bickham Script, Zapfino, Ed Interlock may be — they must be damned sophisticated** — it is just contextual substitution.

Exactly, I wanted to say this last night, but i was too tired to write anything too coherent. Which ties into:

the fun is not in repeating something but in adding to it.

Call me a masochist, but i loved geometry. solving all those proofs was fun! i think OT coding is a lot like solving geometry proofs. you have a problem, you think through it, break it down into steps, and come up with a solution. I haven’t used Ed Interlock, but from reading materials about it, the code wouldn’t be that tough to write, it’s just innovative and appropriate for the design. Randomness a la Local Gothic isn’t such a bug either. We got Mystic Font to spit out fairly random answers. Maybe the solution was not as elegant as it could be, but the effect is similar. But if Tal didn’t want me to look at his code and learn from it, i’d respect that. I’d just come up with my own solutions. I thank people on here that have helped me so much, esp Adam Twardoch, Thomas Phinney, John Hudson, Christian Robertson and others who have shared code, helped me solve problems and get a grasp on OT coding. I hope I can be just as helpful to others as they have been to me.

—> Simon said: “...boiler plate text...”

I was just making a point. That wording isn’t foreign to EULAs and we should respect those who have it as part of their EULAs.

Which is something I brought up, sort of, in my EULA discussion. Using phrases that do keep us from even using the font...basically.

The driving analogy is a good one, I agree.

“Call me a masochist, but i loved geometry”

I loved Geometry as a kid too. It was the only math that I thought was fun.
However, imagine trying to do Geometry problems without knowing axioms, postulates, and definitions though? This is what I liken OTF feature code building blocks to. Everyone chooses from the same set of axioms, postulates, and definitions to do their proofs but they are solving different problems. Should not everyone have access to the same set of OTF feature building blocks to design their own but unique typefaces? To me, that is axiomatic :-)
QED

I will add that Adobe (particularly kudos to Thomas) has done the type design community a GREAT service by making so much of their hard work available to us all. This is also smart business by Adobe. I think their customers appreciate it.
None of us on this discussion has any desire to pirate other peoples work. Basically, I think pirates are lazy. If there is work involved, they are not interested.
Adobe does ask people to log in and identify themselves before they download the items Thomas mentioned. This is a good thing. At least they can keep track of the interested parties. Crooks don’t like to leave a calling card but honest people don’t mind.

ChrisL

> if Tal didn’t want me to look at his code and learn from it, i’d respect that.

That’s entirely normal between people who feel a kinship - sort of like an extended family. But realism dictates that you can’t build a EULA on the expectation of such camaraderie. Where such a thing does have a place however is in the parallel document I favor.

> I was just making a point.

You guys are persistently avoiding the hard questions...

> This is also smart business by Adobe.

Exactly. As opposed to control-freak paranoia.

hhp

I write OpenType feature code for hire. I have always considered it a work product for them to do with what they please (keep it to themselves, post it publicly) because each font is different. Any font designer can repurpose existing feature code to make their font do just about anything possible in OpenType. I don’t think of it as their paying for an algorithm or a particularly novel approach. I think of it as their paying for me to do something they don’t want to do themselves.

Since OT feature code is *mostly* decompilable to an extent that a third party can figure out, if after some tedium, a type designer would be foolish to count on feature code confidentiality as a critical part of his business model. And I don’t think any of them do. That said, a few type designers have some interesting ideas about what esoteric details should be jealously guarded. If they’re paying me to do it, I of course abide by their wishes. Personally, I’m too lazy to be paranoid about most things not having to do with my credit rating and bank account.

I agree with Hrant that Adobe is doing both the right thing and the smart thing when it comes to sharing OT feature code. I also agree that most of traffic law enforcement is nothing more than a revenue source. Most departments don’t even bother maintaining the charade anymore. And I’m waiting for those stupid Gatso Buggertron cameras to show up where I live.

I’m in two minds about sharing OTL lookup data. I’m quite happy to explain to people what needs to be done to make something work, but I’m not always keen to share my actual sources, since these sometimes represent a significant investment of time. Often, a decision about whether to share something depends on who is asking. Am I going to share my sources with e.g. Monotype or Linotype without asking to be paid something? Probably not. But I’m likely to be more generous with students or with someone doing work for a non-profit organisation whose goals I support.

Adobe have a sound business interest in sharing OT feature code because they are not primarily a type foundry. It benefits their application market for there to be lots of well made and clever OpenType fonts available. If their primary or sole business was selling font licenses, I suspect they might be less generous. It is in their role as a major application platform that it is good business for them to share OT technology, just as it is good business for Microsoft to make free tools available to font developers.

You put that well John (Hudson).
I had written several posts along those lines but didn’t hit the send button, as it always seemed like I was trashing MS and Adobe, biting the hand that feeds, so to speak.

I’m ambivalent about the issue. On the one hand I think it’s great that I, as an independent, am able to make fonts with all these amazing features developed by MS and Adobe, and market them around the world. On the other hand, I’m critical of how the way that font formats have been developed by the software giants has left content creators with little protection, and the creative work involved — whether by code warriors or bezier wranglers — has been devalued by being given away (by font bundling, and now by feature dissemination).

To muddy the waters further, there is an altruistic dimension to Unicode/OpenType, if you still believe that technology can save the world. So it’s not just the self-interest of trans-national corporations at work, but a bunch of typographers across society, on a mission.

Rather than becoming completely standardized and wiki-available, I think that feature code will in future become more diverse and typeface specific, with a creativity that intertwines code and typographic concepts in new kinds of OpenType fonts, and you can see this open-minded approach in Karsten’s work, especially his new Tiptoes.

Thanks to all of you, I have found some very good sources for code now. I certainly have enough to learn what I need for typical features common to most faces. After I digest this material, I may be ready to venture into more atypical uses.

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!!!
Mark, Paul, Si, Nick, Tiff, Randy, John, Thomas, Tim, Hrant, Dan, Chester, and Karsten

ChrisL

You’re welcome.

I am glad that Adobe’s situation does indeed give me a business case for behaving in a communal fashion. I think my only alternatives would be to be self-employed or run my own independent foundry, if I wanted to behave in this fashion.

Cheers,

T

“I am glad that Adobe’s situation does indeed give me a business case for behaving in a communal fashion. “

I am sure you are a driving force in voicing the need for “behaving in a communal fashion”. When business becomes people oriented, it is always do to the integrity and vision of the people in the business. We all owe you big time Thomas!

ChrisL

In fact Adobe is typographically culturally valuable in spite of
being a public company solely due to the quality of its type people.

hhp

I say screw ethics. If any of the EULA is enforcable, let ’em try to enforce it. Otherwise, I say look in any font you want. Steal code, outlines, whatver. People have been doing it since Gutenberg. If you don’t do it someone else will. Survival of the fittest. See you all in court!!! (It’s a good thing i dont’ actually distribute fonts.)

See you in court? No, more like look down to see you in the gutter.

hhp

I’m prone to devil’s advocacy. But it is usefull, I think, to distinguish between what people do, and what they say they do.

Hrant,
I think Carl was being facetious.

ChrisL

It’s no secret that my humor is defficient. :-/

And yes: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

hhp