Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Wosven

Members
  • Posts

    4,129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Wosven reacted to MikeW in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    From Adobe:
    Similarly, the terms of service do not allow copying or moving the files that have been activated through the Creative Cloud desktop application.
  2. Like
    Wosven reacted to MikeW in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    I don't think you understand Serif's complicity in allowing a user to violate their agreement. Serif had to have (I believe they did so) tested the "feature" as regards collecting fonts that are in hidden user accounts. If they did, they violated their agreement--they broke the law in so doing. Further, with willfulness, Serif is allowing their users to violate their licenses. They are complicit in that act whether the user understand the EULA or not.
    So, are you against Serif changing how the packaging of cloud fonts now works to where cloud fonts are initially set to not be included and provide the user the menas to override that choice and include restricted fonts in the package?
  3. Like
    Wosven reacted to R C-R in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    Why stop there? Just state that nobody should use any software or any other resources that are in any way encumbered by licensing restrictions of any kind.
  4. Like
    Wosven reacted to R C-R in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    They have done nothing wrong. It is not their responsibility for what an end user does that would violate any EULA, be it Adobe's, that of the OS they use, or any Affinity or other software product. After all, that's why they are called end user licensing agreements.
  5. Haha
    Wosven reacted to LondonSquirrel in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    It would be far easier to state: do not use cloud fonts.
  6. Haha
    Wosven reacted to LondonSquirrel in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    ... that I have ever read.
  7. Like
    Wosven reacted to GenewalDesign in Construction workers favourite tool   
    Disclaimer : I wasn't inquired by Milwaukee to create this artwork. It was only for myself.
    Also, don't start a war between Makita and DeWalt fans, please 😁

  8. Like
    Wosven reacted to MikeW in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    No, no, no...
    An APub package, currently, allows the use of cloud fonts indefinitely past the end of one's subscription. Completely against the license.
    It is a joint responsibility, the user's & Serif's (at this point). 
    Here's my guess. Serif will change this at some point at least to the second option I believe would be acceptable (the option I think the newish Feature Request is advocating for). That is, allow the user to purposefully opt to include cloud fonts in a package but have them initially set to not be included. I still believe the best would be to have no Serif-created means of including them.
    If I had been in charge of the decision to include cloud fonts or not to ever include them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If/when a user complained, Serif would/could simply state that to do so violates the agreement one makes when using cloud fonts. 
  9. Like
    Wosven reacted to MikeW in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    Yes, even Time Machine is technically violating the license agreement. But there is a significant difference with what APub is doing. After a restore from TM, the fonts will not work in an application if there is not an active CC subscription. Whereas a APub package will allow the use of those fonts in the packaged document even if one cancels their subscription.
  10. Like
    Wosven reacted to R C-R in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    So if copying Cloud or other restricted fonts is prohibited by the licensing terms, does this mean that using apps or services that create backups like Time Machine, Google Drive, iCloud, & many others to backup any documents that include those fonts violates the licensing terms? If so, is it the responsibility of the user or the app or service not to do that?
    Along the same lines, if someone is a user of Adobe Cloud or any other restricted fonts, is it their responsibility not to include them in APub packages (or in any other document from which someone else with sufficient skill could extract them), or should the app or OS or whatever somehow make this impossible to do? If the latter, how could that be done?
  11. Like
    Wosven reacted to Old Bruce in Save As a Package and exclude individual fonts.   
    In order to comply with various font EULAs please let us choose whether or not to include restricted fonts when we make a package. As things stand we can include all the fonts or none of the fonts. The dialog will show us which fonts are restricted but then we have to either exclude all fonts or enter into the package folder and selectively find and remove the restricted fonts.
  12. Like
    Wosven reacted to Old Bruce in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    I can get behind this feature improvement.
    Please let us choose whether or not to include restricted fonts.
  13. Like
    Wosven reacted to VectorVonDoom in Papercut Style Doodling.   
    Just because...

  14. Like
    Wosven reacted to lacerto in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    Here is what happens on my mac (latest Publisher 1.10.4 on macOS Monterey, M1 chip). I have not disabled any warnings nor do I know if such warnings even can be disabled, but I am not warned about anything -- not when creating the package, nor when opening it. Both inclusion of fonts when packaging and installing a missing cloud font (when that font is not activated and accordingly "missing") are default selections in the software:

    MyInnocentPackage.mp4 You could easily test this on your system -- or wait, you cannot, as like you mentioned, you have never used CC in your life, do not have any experience on using cloud fonts, yet you debate loudly here on things that you know very little about (e.g. you confuse opening the package and existence of cloud fonts in the package to act of copying the fonts included there in the first place). You are obviously not worried about breach of copyrights because you are not a creative person trying to make a living on your creations, nor do you need to be worried about inadvertently breaking copyrights or license agreements because you have not made any related to use of cloud fonts, and will never deliver a package that might have cloud fonts automatically included, so you can congratulate yourself for good citizenship and Serif for job well done.
  15. Confused
    Wosven got a reaction from R C-R in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    So, it's only another "by design" fonctionality we need to overcome with tricks to add to an already long list to do our job efficiently? All is fine then.
  16. Thanks
    Wosven got a reaction from AffinityJules in Straighten canvas   
    Alt+Mouse scroll back to correct angle.
    Perhaps there's an option to disable it, or it was asked for.
  17. Like
    Wosven reacted to lacerto in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    I do not mean just randomly accessing hidden system directiories and seeing if there happens to be font files. I mean code written with previously known path where e.g. Adobe cloud fonts reside. This path is not returned by font API but requires deliberate access. If you read the license agreement cited a couple of times in this thread, this (accessing the fonts in their hidden installation locations, copying them from there into another location so that fonts can be accessed without subscription and activation)  is a prohibited act. Serif provides a specific tool, the user packaging the font makes a violation against agreement they have accepted. The strategy seems to be "we do not know what the users do", and "we did not know what software does". Yep, nobody knows.
  18. Like
    Wosven reacted to lacerto in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    I think that whether something can be considered as a criminal act (and sued), or "just" a violation of a license agreement are two different things. As you earlier cited Adobe Fonts license agreement:
    This is in many ways problematic condition, but it is clear that the code implemented by Serif is a tool to specifically copy the fonts from their (hidden) install location in purpose of accessing them without having a subscription and activation. IMO it is unethical but it is the user who violates the license conditions which they have accepted (even if the violation itself might have been made inadvertently).  
  19. Haha
    Wosven got a reaction from garrettm30 in Affinity Pascal would be great   
    You're wrong, they go well and the result is nice:
    https://www.clarisvirot.com/en/home/2620-gold-turtle-python-chocolate-belt.html

  20. Like
    Wosven reacted to MikeW in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    Whether they would bother, even if they believed there was legal grounds to, is up to them. Or to the makers of fonts licensed to them (though I believe they have a duty to protect the vendors they make agreements with). Packaging is something new to APub.
  21. Like
    Wosven reacted to MikeW in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    And here's maybe a fun thought exercise...
    Serif has a Adobe CC license. If they have packaged files in APub that uses Adobe (or other such cloud font vendors' fonts) in order to test the package function in APub, Serif has broken the law/license agreement they have with Adobe.
    Fun to think about...(for me anyway)
  22. Like
    Wosven reacted to lacerto in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    You do not seem to understand that accessing via code the location of a specific installation path already involves an intentional act ("attempt") so the violation is basically inbuilt. We can of course assume that Serif has never actually made the violation because they never executed (tested) the code, as that seems to happen in many other feature implementations I am not saying that this stands in the courtroom, but that the current implementation is unethical. That is of course just my opinion, and if you could not care less (make "nonsense" of any counter argument), or disagree, that's fine by me, but it is naive to make statements about "good faith". 
  23. Like
    Wosven got a reaction from MikeW in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    It's a fonts service, not specifically for Adobe's apps. And the EULA don't mention specifically Adobe's apps.
    Requirements for using Adobe cloud fonts:
    https://helpx.adobe.com/fonts/system-subscription-requirements.html
    And:
    https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2020/04/23/20-creative-ways-to-use-adobe-fonts-you-may-have-missed
     
  24. Like
    Wosven reacted to MikeW in Fonts allowed in a packaged file   
    Adobe has a long history of suing, and winning, its court battles. Including font rights. As have several smaller font foundries. Whether Adobe would bother is an unknown to me. But I could write my contacts at Adobe (as well as the foundry of the non-Adobe cloud fonts that were in that package. Adobe has a dutyy to them that people/companies do not violate their licensing...) and point them to this thread if y'all would like to hear/read their opinion on the matter.
    To me, the best outcome would be that cloud fonts are not even listed and not packaged. Second best would be they are listed, but packaging for them disabled. One could argue that a third best option would be to show them while packaging with them disabled with the option for a user to override it on purpose. Again, these are my opinions...
  25. Like
    Wosven reacted to garrettm30 in Affinity for Android   
    I remember listening to an interview of Ashley Hewson wherein he talked about the early days of development for the Affinity line. If I remembered correctly, development actually started on iOS, and as hardware was considerably weak then as compared to today’s standards, the current efficiency of Affinity (at least in Apple hardware) has a lot to do with those early experiences. Ash was talking about how they had to get graphics working well with very limited memory.
    The point is that iPad was not really an additional platform, but Affinity was developed with it in mind right from the beginning, even though the iPad apps did come out later than the Mac versions. Windows was an additional platform (though I can only assume that Serif probably did intend to make Windows versions from the beginning), and it no doubt took a considerable amount of effort to bring the apps to that different platform. However, the profit potential for that market made the effort worth it when weighed against the resources available to Serif.
    I would not be surprised if Android does eventually get some apps from Serif. In my estimation, it is just a question of timing. As a company, it is reasonable that they will go where the money is. As the company grows, and as sales of their existing offerings starts to reach saturation, they will naturally ask where they can go next and whether they have or can get the resources to launch off into new territory. Right now, they still do not have Publisher on iPad, and as that is one of their existing markets and an easier goal to obtain than launching any of the Affinity line on additional platform, I would expect that they would prioritize rounding out the trilogy on iPad as their next step.
    These are all just observations from the outside. You can be sure that Serif has had discussions about which platforms to support and their roadmap for when or if they hope to support such and such a platform. I have merely tried to suggest what seems to be a plausible explanation for what we have seen so far.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.