[XeTeX] Arial and Times New Roman license?

George N. White III gnwiii at gmail.com
Tue Dec 22 17:32:45 CET 2009


On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Adam Twardoch (List)
<list.adam at twardoch.com> wrote:
> Kārlis,
>
> Microsoft at some point in the past did publish a set of "core fonts"
> (Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New, Trebuchet, Verdana, Georgia -- in
> one particular version) with a EULA that permitted a very specific
> distribution: one was allowed to distribute the original .exe archives
> that were self-extracting Windows files containing .cab files which in
> turn contained the fonts.
>
> Microsoft had since removed those fonts from their hosting service, but,
> since the EULA permitted it, the opensource people have hosted them at
> http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/
>
> Most Linux vendors have created installers that extract these fonts from
> the EXE+CAB archives. This means, however, that the extracted .ttf files
> may not be distributed. They also may not be modified etc.
>
> They are closed-source packages with a very limited right of
> distribution which only applies to that particular version of the fonts.
> I must admit that I was somewhat surprised: many opensource vendors are
> known for bashing Microsoft and labeling it "an evil company", but if
> Microsoft publishes some quality fonts with a permission to distribute,
> all the vendors jump on it like mice onto a piece of cheese, rather than
> investing in developing quality fonts themselves.

There are situations where you really do need the original fonts.  There
are  EPS or PDF files created on MS WIndows that use the fonts but
don't embed them, so the most direct way to view or print the files is
to install the same fonts.

At one time I was working with NASA pdf documents that were created
using WordPerfect but did not embed the fonts.  I had to find and install
wpmath fonts in order to view the documents.  There have been
similar problems with the MS core fonts.

There are also cases where one needs to update an old document
that was originally generated on MS WIndows.  "clone" fonts are
generally not identical to the originals -- a common problem is
"Helvetica Italic", which was often aliased to a mechanically
obliqued Helvetica, so braces, etc. were slanted.   Then you
have to decide whether the "a/b" in some figure legend is
really "a|b".

See: <http://linear-programming.com/Updates.htm>
<http://www.business.uiuc.edu/broker/fin300/supplement.asp?code=Waspi>

> I consider this moral relativism, but what do I know :)

MS would be in even deeper anti-trust dodo if they took
steps to prevent legacy documents from being
viewed/printed accurately on other platforms.



> Best,
> Adam
>
> Kārlis Repsons wrote:
>> People,
>> looking with otfinfo at the files of those fonts (which eneded up in my Linux
>> without requiring me to accept anything) show me what is in the attachment.
>> Among other things it states: "You may not copy or distribute this software"!
>> But I'm not sure what is the real, effective license of it? Monotype Imaging
>> Inc. EULA as found at http://www.fonts.com/Legal/EOT_Eula.htm? (the provided
>> license URL is dead).
>>
>> So what is it, do I really have font distributed with Linux or through some
>> package management system, which explicitly says, it can't be distributed?!
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Adam Twardoch
> | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType
> | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net
>
> Reporter: "So what will your trip to Ireland look like?"
> Lech Wałęsa: "I get into a car, then onto a plane, and then the other
> way around."
>
>



-- 
George N. White III <aa056 at chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia


More information about the XeTeX mailing list