[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp> writes:

> At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese.  But let me get one thing
>> straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
>> No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines, just bitmaps?
> Well, it's complicated issue.  It's no wonder some readers are
> confused.
>> Alternately, let me ask three simple questions:
>> 1. Were the hitachi fonts bitmaps?
> Yes.

Then Hitachi has no copyright on the fonts -- at least not in the US,
though Japanese law may be different.  Because bitmaps are the only
possible representation of the font at that resolution, there's no
creativity, and thus no copyright.

>> 2. Were the kochi fonts bitmaps?
> No and Yes.

OK.  Then the kochi license matters.  Truetype code is read as
*programs* by the courts, and so receives copyright protection.

> The original watanabe font is converted from bitmap to truetype, and
> such converted font is remarkably similar to the original.
> In addition, kochi font has both truetype and bitmap information.
> Bitmap information is used as truetype hinting information for
> displaying specific small font size (12,14,16dot) for CRT.
>> 3. Are the watanabe fonts bitmaps?
> No and Yes.
> Original watanabe font is bitmap, but ttf-watanabe-* font is converted
> to truetype as I described above.  Kochi used truetype version, but it
> may use even bitmap information.
>> If the answer to any one of those three questions is yes, Debian's fine
>> distributing them.
> So it can not distribute straightforwardly...
> Regards,
> -- gotom

Reply to: