On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:39:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > The key to this decision is: > > A computer program is defined by the Copyright Act as "a set of > statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a > computer to bring about a certain result." 17 U.S.C. §101. > Computer programs are protectable literary works. 17 U.S.C. > §102(a); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d > 1240, 1247-48 (3rd Cir. 1983). Typeface designs are not > copyrightable. Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 298 (4th Cir. > 1978). A computer program is not rendered unprotectable merely > because its output is not protectable. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. > Formula Int'l, Inc., 562 F.Supp. 775, 781-2 (C.D. Cal. 1983); > aff'd, 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus, the fact that a > computer program produces unprotectable typefaces does not make > the computer program itself unprotectable. > > In effect, the computer program itself (eg, the TrueType part is > protected) but the output of the program is not. So it should be possible to reverse-engineer and reimplement any non-hinted outline font, and place the result under a Free Software license. Right? -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only branden@debian.org | outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature