[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]
Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Substituted fonts and Bug 1057
- From: Alex Bligh <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:18:35 +0100
- Subject: Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Substituted fonts and Bug 1057
It's pretty clear reading various threads about this, that the fonts are
available and it's perfectly legal for Linux users to download and use.
I never said they weren't legal for Linux users to download.
I said it would be unlawful for Xara to distribute them, and
relying on something which you yourself cannot distribute, and man
distributions cannot distribute is a recipe for problems.
Microsoft can't and it appears do not even want to withdraw the font
license they provided with the core fonts. Apple has a license to
include them on the Mac, even after the removal of IE from OSX.
Well I can find nothing in the EULA to justify that. Here is the
paragraph (my emphasis):
# Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an
unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each
copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and
trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA.
Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit *either
on a standalone basis* or included as part of your own product.
That implies to me that Xara cannot distribute them: you would be
distributing them "for profit" even if you are not charging for
the individual fonts, as one presumes that the idea would be to
enhance LX which by assumption is aimed at increasing Xara's
profits - it's a commercial entity. It does not say "at no charge".
Sure, someone who is not distributing them for profit can
distribute the unmodified exe.
If Apple has a license to include them that only strengthens
my point. Why would Apple need a license if the EULA was
However, do you want to be reliant on them doing so?
I find it a bit surprising you, of all people, who normally suggests
things should run from a single binary, or a cross-platform
installer are now suggesting people should have to go to a separate
site to get fonts to allow the default document to work.
This is quite apart from how badly relying on an MS EULA in
a supposedly open-source project would go down. OpenOffice does
not require them to load these fonts, so why should Xara?
(that will be the perception).
I take the point that it would be a pity to use a default doc
with Nimbus in if there were a better font there (I hear good
things about Vera Sans which is TT and the Ubuntu default -
Nimbus is ATM). Perhaps we should do something a bit simpler:
just use a default document with Arial in if it's there at
install time (or possibly at document creation time), else
use a substitute (Nimbus, Vera, or whatever "ft-match Arial"
gives). We could do this by having an option on save that says
"permanently substitute fonts on load". This would only be
set in the distributed templates and be off by default
(and clearly would not persist after the next load). So if
you do a "new document" without Arial installed using the
default template, you get Nimbus (or whatever). If you
have Arial installed, or use a user-created template, you
get Arial or (in the latter case) an Arial attribute which
is temporarily substituted. Then people who want to run
without MS EULAs (or run distro without them) can.