Fonts allowed in a packaged file

[Old Bruce]

Just now, Wosven said:

It's all or nothing, but if we decide to package some of the fonts, it's because we need to. We simply don't want the restricted ones to be packaged.

Actually what we should be doing is replacing the restricted fonts in the Document. However, if I and my Printer (printshop) and colleague all have licenses for the fonts then we don't need to replace them.

 I have packaged up all the ingredients for a cake. Oh no, the eggs are bad. Should I replace them? Of course I should replace them.

[Wosven]

4 minutes ago, Lagarto said:

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 beenmade inadvertently).

The interesting point in this is that the apps can be used to retrieve all the licenced fonts from Adobe cloud... 😱

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, Wosven said:

It's all or nothing, but if we decide to package some of the fonts, it's because we need to. We simply don't want the restricted ones to be packaged.

Then that should be added as a feature request, but even without that feature there is no way Serif can be held legally accountable if a user chooses to include restricted fonts. Spin it however you want but it is strictly up to the user to use every bit of software they have only in legal ways. 

[Old Bruce]

2 minutes ago, Wosven said:

The interesting point in this is that the apps can be used to retrieve all the licenced fonts from Adobe cloud... 😱

I can't use the Affinity applications to retrieve the fonts. Because I don't have a Creative Cloud account and therefore cannot access them. Someone who has agreed to the EULA can, but then that person would be breaking the EULA. 

[R C-R]

8 minutes ago, Lagarto said:

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.

How so? When I opened the ExampleDocument package the hidden/restricted fonts were not copied to any location on my Mac that could be accessed by anything other than the document in that package. In fact, had I not left the "Install" option enabled in the Summary window, they would not even be available temporarily in that document.

[R C-R]

5 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

I can't use the Affinity applications to retrieve the fonts. Because I don't have a Creative Cloud account and therefore cannot access them. Someone who has agreed to the EULA can, but then that person would be breaking the EULA. 

Exactly! It still all boils down to what the user actually does, not to what the app (or the OS) permits them to do.

[lacerto]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

I don't understand what do you mean by that.

This is a reference to font API, the way fonts are handled in code. If there were e.g. functions that can return installation path of available fonts, then it could be argued that the code implementation just processes cloud based fonts similarly as non-cloud based fonts installed in regular ways (so that they show in the Fonts section of Control Panel on Windows and in the Font Book on macOS), and therefore inclusion of "violating" fonts is "just" an "oversight", an "accident". But IMO accessing the hidden locations requires specifically written hard coded paths, so it is an act that shows a clear intention to access, copy and make available fonts in a way that directly violates the license agreement the users have accepted when making the CC subscription. The installation paths of non-cloud based fonts are (on WIndows) saved in the system registry and can be retrieved programmatically from there, and this is the way regular font files get packaged (copied from their installation locations). 

[Wosven]

21 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

1. Actually what we should be doing is replacing the restricted fonts in the Document.

2. However, if I and my Printer (printshop) and colleague all have licenses for the fonts then we don't need to replace them.

3. I have packaged up all the ingredients for a cake. Oh no, the eggs are bad. Should I replace them? Of course I should replace them.

1. It negates the interest of using a subscription to get more fonts.... and wanting to do nice design using more than the OS' fonts.

Why not? Perhaps we can all work simply with the default Arial font and not bother with fonts in our  documents, life would be simpler!

 

2. They need a subscription to display the fonts, but as I already mentioned, if it's your archive, and you keep the subscription, it won't be a problem. If it's a printer or another Adobe user, it won't be a problem either. Printers usually don't need the fonts, since we send them PDF… since... perhaps it comes with the Internet, nearly the same time as the use of Internet. It was easier to send a PDF, and do possible last minute corrections and send another PDF... than sending a CD, and needing to ask the printer to do the corrections to keep the deadline (instead of sending another CD).

3. That's really different. Do you know about font versions? You don't want to change fonts, event the same kind but with a different version if you're at the end of a work and it means checking everything and managing text flowing differently...

 

14 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

I can't use the Affinity applications to retrieve the fonts. Because I don't have a Creative Cloud account

You can't. And I won't, even with an account, and it take me long fore the idea to cross my mind.

But this doesn't mean other people won't, since you just need a subscription for a single app for this.

[Old Bruce]

2 minutes ago, Wosven said:

It negates the interest of using a subscription to get more fonts.... and wanting to do nice design using more than the OS' fonts.

Why not? Perhaps we can all work simply with the default Arial font and not bother with fonts in our  documents, life would be simpler!

Or, we can purchase fonts. Not Cloud Fonts, but fonts with licenses that are like the ones from before the introduction of the Cloud Fonts. 

[lacerto]

37 minutes ago, R C-R said:

How so? When I opened the ExampleDocument package the hidden/restricted fonts were not copied to any location on my Mac

They were copied from their hidden locations to the Fonts folder of the package. This cannot be done "automatically" by just mechanically (without discrimination) applying a copy command to paths returned by a font API function that enumerates or requests information about available fonts because at least on Windows such information is not available in font API but needs to be read separately from the system registry for non-cloud based fonts, or for cloud fonts, requires pre-known knowledge about hidden installation paths. I think that in this respect cloud fonts are handled similarly on Windows and macOS, as on both systems cloud fonts are not listed "publicly" in OS font connections that display or allow direct access to the installation location (the Fonts section of Control Panel on Windows, and the Font Book on macOS).

[Wosven]

2 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Or, we can purchase fonts. Not Cloud Fonts, but fonts with licenses that are like the ones from before the introduction of the Cloud Fonts. 

You don't seems to do work like ads. For example, when doing ads, you'll have to try to match the clients' ones used on his business card, even the most original or ugly ones, because it's his design.

Do you really want to put money in a font you barely use?

Do you think you can charge small clients for buying fonts when doing small ads?

 

That's why with the years, old companie can have a huge typothèque (font library), coming from years of buying fonts.

 

Now, if you need to buy new fonts for new OS, not able to use old fonts, and need to choose between buying those 3500-4000 fonts licences for 50 or more computers, or using a subscription service, and buying fonts from time to time to rebuid a font library? What is your choice, after covid and other publishing industry problems?

[lacerto]

9 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I disagree with that argument. A path is just a path. The fact that it might be 'hidden' is neither here nor there. The paths to all kinds of things can be considered 'hidden', but merely accessing them is not a problem in itself.

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.

[MikeW]

3 minutes ago, Hens said:

Can you have the adobe fonts in xara and embed them in a pdf?
 

Yes, but that is not a violation of the agreement. It is expressly permitted. 

[MikeW]

8 minutes ago, Hens said:

Isn't that also a distribution of fonts in a package?
One only needs a pdf program where one can use the fonts within.(like xara)
I know this will not be that specific fontfile anymore but it would be re-usable and therefore also violates the license.

Or, Adobe's own application, Acrobat.

What neither of them can do is access characters beyond what is already used in the pdf file (of course, depends on the embedding rights for a particular font and the pdf creation software). Adobe's fonts and those that they license do not actually permit full embedding (not that I have checked every single one).

But, packaging the whole cloud font file (which expressly is a violation of the license) is different from font subsetting in a pdf for the express purpose of printing and/or distribution of said pdf (which is expressly permitted).

[lacerto]

21 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I could write code to access a supposedly hidden/obfuscated directory in a couple of minutes.

Anybody can. But if you write code to specifically access and copy cloud fonts and make them available for use without requiring font activation (as Serif does), you have created a specific tool for a specific purpose. Anybody can do that, too. I have just said that creating such a tool as part of a graphic design software is not ethical. People seem to amuse themselves with the thought that the "tool itself" crafted specifically to do such a thing is not to blame, nor is the user who does not know what the tool does. So that's all good then.

[Wosven]

14 minutes ago, Lagarto said:

I have just said that creating such a tool as part of a graphic design sotware is not ethical.

And now, I'm wondering if the bug shouldn't be corrected in a hurry, previous versions of the apps needing to be disabled to force upgrading, so only the last versions stay in use.

[MikeW]

39 minutes ago, Wosven said:

And now, I'm wondering if the bug shouldn't be corrected in a hurry, previous versions of the apps needing to be disabled to force upgrading, so only the last versions stay in use.

A bit draconian. Serif would need to just alter the feature going forward in a timely manner. 

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, Lagarto said:

They were copied from their hidden locations to the Fonts folder of the package.

All I did was to open the document in the *.afpackage file on my Mac. The font files were already included in the Fonts folder by whoever created the package file. It was that person's responsibility, & that person's responsibility alone, not to do that if that was not permitted by the licensing terms. AFPub gave that person ample warnings about that & a way to avoid doing it. Therefore Serif is in no way responsible for anything that person does that violates the terms or is for any other reason considered to be illegal in whatever jurisdictions apply to the user & to whatever companies are involved.

[Wosven]

3 minutes ago, MikeW said:

A bit draconian.

It only reflect how bad I would feel doing such a mistake and searching ways to correct it!

 

5 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

We're talking about copying files, whether right or wrong. It's absolutely no different to using cp in a terminal. 

Exactly what thought Aaron Swartz.

[Wosven]

11 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Therefore Serif is in no way responsible for anything that person does that violates the terms or is for any other reason considered to be illegal in whatever jurisdictions apply to the user & to whatever companies are involved.

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.

[R C-R]

7 minutes ago, Wosven said:

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.

What tricks are you talking about? You only need to uncheck one box to avoid including fonts in the package. How much simpler you want that to be?

[lacerto]

5 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

We're talking about copying files

You are talking about your skill of writing cp. On a very high horse.

[lacerto]

6 hours ago, R C-R said:

All I did was to open the document in the *.afpackage file on my Mac. The font files were already included in the Fonts folder by whoever created the package file. It was that person's responsibility, & that person's responsibility alone, not to do that if that was not permitted by the licensing terms. AFPub gave that person ample warnings about that & a way to avoid doing it. Therefore Serif is in no way responsible for anything that person does that violates the terms or is for any other reason considered to be illegal in whatever jurisdictions apply to the user & to whatever companies are involved.

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:

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.

[lacerto]

On 3/1/2022 at 4:10 AM, MikeW said:

I don't have a current subscription so cannot check to see what other non-Adobe applications do.

I tested this with QXP2018: packaging ends up in an error message (no specific error), probably caused by an not (expected) inability to copy cloud fonts used in the document (because installation path is not returned by font API), so at least no specific methods are implemented to collect hidden cloud fonts. The packaging itself was done successfully and no fonts included. Also, inclusion of fonts is not the default, and the copyright warning is shown.

I have no longer QXP2022 trial (will most probably get it if and when they make an offer) so cannot test how that works.

The package report says this:

Quote

@header:LAYOUT FONTS @layout fonts title:Font Name    PostScript Name    File Name @layout fonts:<\<>P>Rieven Uncial    RievenUncial    Printer font not installed. @layout fonts:Missing(not collected): No fonts used. @layout fonts:Restricted(not collected): No fonts used.

 

[Wosven]

7 hours ago, R C-R said:

What tricks are you talking about? You only need to uncheck one box to avoid including fonts in the package. How much simpler you want that to be?

Are you reading anything in there? I'll re-explain a third time just for you:

• When you want to archive your work in a package with the fonts you have the right  to copy
• Simply to be sure that it'll archive the fonts with the version used in the document,
• To avoid any bad surprises that could happen when opening a document vith same fonts of a different version
• You need to create a package with all the fonts
• You need to display the hidden files on your computer
• Simply to be able to delete the fonts you're forbiden to copy
• And stay in the termsof the legal agreement of Adobe cloud fonts.