What font are you using on your PW?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by freedumb2000

Unless of course, you just offered a binary patch.

Huh? How have you supposed to create that binary patch without breaking that EULA in the first place? Sure it would be legal to distribute some random patch file that fell from the sky, but nobody can use it that does not want to break their own EULA.

From section 2:

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS.

• ...
• Restrictions on Alteration. You may not rename, edit or create any derivative works from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, other than subsetting when embedding them in documents.
• ...

You might not care, but others care to use legal fonts.

[NullNix]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Restrictions on Alteration. You may not rename, edit or create any derivative works from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, other than subsetting when embedding them in documents.

So... it's legal to embed the entire font in a document? (If creating subsets is legal, a 100% subset would have to be -- that's what a good few simpleminded PDF creators do when embedding fonts, after all).

That gives a form of apparently-legal distribution after all, as long as the recipient knows enough to be able to extract the thing from the PDF file again. Curious hole, but I guess they had no choice: a font which prohibits embedding isn't going to get used.

[freedumb2000]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Huh? How have you supposed to create that binary patch without breaking that EULA in the first place? Sure it would be legal to distribute some random patch file that fell from the sky, but nobody can use it that does not want to break their own EULA.


You might not care, but others care to use legal fonts.

I do care (and I wonder how you got the impressions that I do not). That section you quoted sounds like you cannot even modify it for your own use. Meaning you cannot even change the metrics and use them on your Kindle if you own the font. Although in this case I would challenge the validity of such a clause, at least depending on the jurisdiction.

On the other hand, if you are allowed modify a font for your own use, distributing only a binary patch should not pose a problem, since you can only use it if you already own the original font and it consists in no part of any copyrighted code of the original font.

[freedumb2000]

Originally Posted by NullNix

So... it's legal to embed the entire font in a document? (If creating subsets is legal, a 100% subset would have to be -- that's what a good few simpleminded PDF creators do when embedding fonts, after all).

That gives a form of apparently-legal distribution after all, as long as the recipient knows enough to be able to extract the thing from the PDF file again. Curious hole, but I guess they had no choice: a font which prohibits embedding isn't going to get used.

Just because you can technically extract the font does not mean you are allowed to re-use it.

[BugA]

Using the default one (Caecilia, size 4 (from left)), Line spacing 2 (middle one), Margins 3 (right one).

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by NullNix

So... it's legal to embed the entire font in a document? (If creating subsets is legal, a 100% subset would have to be -- that's what a good few simpleminded PDF creators do when embedding fonts, after all).

That gives a form of apparently-legal distribution after all, as long as the recipient knows enough to be able to extract the thing from the PDF file again. Curious hole, but I guess they had no choice: a font which prohibits embedding isn't going to get used.

Legal distribution of the unmodified (subset). And since it is covered under Copyright law, derivative work would also mean if you created a font too similar, even if not using the font-file itself, but a scanned in printout.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by freedumb2000

I do care (and I wonder how you got the impressions that I do not). That section you quoted sounds like you cannot even modify it for your own use. Meaning you cannot even change the metrics and use them on your Kindle if you own the font. Although in this case I would challenge the validity of such a clause, at least depending on the jurisdiction.

On the other hand, if you are allowed modify a font for your own use, distributing only a binary patch should not pose a problem, since you can only use it if you already own the original font and it consists in no part of any copyrighted code of the original font.

I know you care, or you would not have brought it up. And yes, technically the EULA forbids modifying for any reason even for personal use. BUT, it grants you the right to modify it anyway, if your local law disallows taking away that right. Check section 2.1. I did not quote that on purpose, as there might be a jurisdiction in tie world that does not grant you the right to do so. Example: removing DRM for personal use is legal most everywhere, but NOT 100% everywhere in the world, for instance. It is still very much illegal to distribute after modified or drm-freed.

[Yolina]

I've come across this font which is nice, like most though could do with being thicker on the PW (I'm using their regular version,not the light one obviously as this would be invisible on the PW I think!) but even as it is I do use it quite a lot. Unfortunately the licence terms don't allow for much, so I can't ask a kind soul with the right software to fatten it up for me but I thought maybe others might like it

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Yolina

I've come across this font which is nice, like most though could do with being thicker on the PW (I'm using their regular version,not the light one obviously as this would be invisible on the PW I think!) but even as it is I do use it quite a lot. Unfortunately the licence terms don't allow for much, so I can't ask a kind soul with the right software to fatten it up for me but I thought maybe others might like it

That one does look nice - maybe you can use the bold as regular, and the display as bold? Since display is even fatter than bold, and in smallcaps, it should me obvious what is bold. Going to put that on my PW when I get a chance.

[Yolina]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

maybe you can use the bold as regular, and the display as bold? Since display is even fatter than bold, and in smallcaps, it should me obvious what is bold.

That's a very good idea which I'll try later today

Edit: using bold as regular is a bit *too* thick so I think I'll just go back to the default.

[xendula]

Good find, Yolina!
Another nice one with 12 different styles is Alegreya. With this one as well, bold could be used as regular, and black or SC black as bold.


ETA: Neuton is nice as well.

[xtine]

Thanks for all these font suggestions, Yolina & xendula. Trying them out right now!

[NullNix]

Originally Posted by freedumb2000

Just because you can technically extract the font does not mean you are allowed to re-use it.

Copyright cannot control use, only distribution, with the exception of barmy regimes like the UK where 'temporary copies' in RAM are covered. (IANAL, but one has to know a good bit about copyright to be a programmer these days )

[JSWolf]

Yolina, have you given my modified Charis SIL a go on your PW? It's been thickened up and the line space has been modified so it's not giving you overly large line spacing with KF8 eBooks. The link to it is earlier on in this thread.

Also, I have a larger version that sort of matches the size of the default Kindle font. But still gives better lin spacing and better letter spacing for more text on screen.

[Yolina]

Yes, your modified Charis is already on my PW