Fonts allowed in a packaged file

[Wosven]

  

6 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

And if you had been at Apple or Microsoft or wherever, you could have disabled all file copying.

In the last years, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc. were and are working on new fonts, and modifying their OS consequently. If it was as simple a this, they would have done it. There's certainly bigger minds than ours on those projects, and the ramifications involved... but it's also possible they forget!

[LondonSquirrel]

4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

The discussion is about one specific act of copying files that breaks the user agreement.

Anyone could do that anyway. Which is why I am saying again that some people are getting on their high horses about it. 

5 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I feel, believe, that if the user really wants to copy those restricted fonts they are free to do so all by themselves. Serif doesn't need to enable them to do so.

Exactly my point. It's just another way of doing it, so why are you complaining about this instead of the far easier method of just copying the files using any other tool?

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, MikeW said:

No, not really. Not in the general sense. The discussion is about one specific act of copying files that breaks the user agreement. 

Actually, in the general sense it is indeed about anything that breaks the EULA, so that would include software from Apple, Microsoft, cloud backup services, & so on. It is not just about APub, & in the most general sense it is about the software user's responsibility to use it in compliance with any & all EULA's.

[kenmcd]

The Microsoft cloud fonts have the same license as all their fonts - which allows embedding with editing.

The Adopy cloud fonts have the ridiculous unrealistic license.

The whole concept of rented fonts is just as bad as rented software.

[LondonSquirrel]

2 minutes ago, LibreTraining said:

The whole concept of rented fonts is just as bad as rented software.

Agreed. I have no idea what the terms are if you create a PDF using a rented font, then end your subscription, now pass the PDF to somebody else with the font embedded. Perhaps that is included in the licence.

This is just about companies (in this case Adobe) keeping its hooks in its users. Remember the not-yet resolved story of the Pantone swatches being removed from CC? I think that Pantone thinks it invented the whole concept of colour.

In this case of the Adobe cloud fonts, we're talking about a subset of Affinity users - those with Affinity and with CC. I wonder what the percentage of Affinity users that is.

[Wosven]

8 minutes ago, R C-R said:

it is about the software user's responsibility to use it in compliance with any & all EULA's.

You can think this way if packaging is a feature you don't need to do often, for example only on the bissextile years... But it begins to be an hindrance if you do it few times a week...

And imagine the akward time when in training, you need to explain this to people...

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, LibreTraining said:

The Adopy cloud fonts have the ridiculous unrealistic license.

Be that as it may, it remains the responsibility of the subscriber to read, understand, & comply with the EULA that comes with them. In that respect, it is no different from the EULA that comes with any other software product, including apps, services, fonts, & OS's. I can't think of a single one that does not include somewhere in the EULA that it is the user's responsibility to make sure that using it does not violate copyrights or otherwise do anything illegal.

Can you?

[MikeW]

15 minutes ago, R C-R said:

So just don't include fonts in APub package files, or don't use APub package files at all. As a cloud font subscriber. you agreed to the EULA so you know the licensing terms & that it is your responsibility to follow them.

People, in general, have no idea what a EULA says. They generally don't read them nor understand them in all their ramifications if they do. The Adobe forums, from time to time, have these packaging type of discussions--Why cannot my fonts be packaged? /usually just a couple posts long as a user or Adobe points out cloud fonts cannot be packaged.

[LondonSquirrel]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I can't think of a single one

... that I have ever read.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, Wosven said:

14 minutes ago, R C-R said:

it is about the software user's responsibility to use it in compliance with any & all EULA's.

You can think this way if packaging is a feature you don't need to do often, for example only on the bissextile years... But it begins to be an hindrance if you do it few times a week...

And imagine the akward time when in training, you need to explain this to people...

It does not matter how awkward or inconvenient it is to comply with the EULA, or even how difficult it is to explain or understand it. If you have agreed to honor it, it is your sole responsibility to do so. 

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

People, in general, have no idea what a EULA says. They generally don't read them nor understand them in all their ramifications if they do.

That is not a valid excuse for not abiding by them. If a user can't do that then they should not use the product at all.

IOW, ignorance is no excuse, particularly if it is willful, & even worse if the user clicks an "accept" button after clicking one that verifies that they have read the EULA.

[kenmcd]

17 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Be that as it may, it remains the responsibility of the subscriber to read, understand, & comply with the EULA that comes with them. In that respect, it is no different from the EULA that comes with any other software product, including apps, services, fonts, & OS's. I can't think of a single one that does not include somewhere in the EULA that it is the user's responsibility to make sure that using it does not violate copyrights or otherwise do anything illegal.

Can you?

I said nothing about that so I do not know why you rant about that to me.

Completely moot point to me as I would never rent/buy/use any fonts with stupid unrealistic licenses such as Adopy cloud fonts or any others.

 

 

 

[MikeW]

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

That is not a valid excuse for not abiding by them. If a user can't do that then they should not use the product at all.

IOW, ignorance is no excuse, particularly if it is willful, & even worse if the user clicks an "accept" button after clicking one that verifies that they have read the EULA.

So, has Serif read the EULA that comes with their CC subscription? Serif has a CC subscription. By enabling a user to violate that EULA that they have read and understood, are they at least in the wrong?

[LondonSquirrel]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

That is not a valid excuse for not abiding by them. If a user can't do that then they should not use the product at all.

Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Here's your computer, start typing... Nobody in that situation ever asked me to agree to a EULA.

[Wosven]

16 minutes ago, R C-R said:

It does not matter how awkward or inconvenient it is to comply with the EULA, or even how difficult it is to explain or understand it. If you have agreed to honor it, it is your sole responsibility to do so. 

What I means was: imagine being with your students, and needing to read them the Adobe EULA before explaining them they have to package their files for archiving and other needs, since it's important, but they also need, since packaging breach this EULA, to display hidden fonts and delete them... if they use a subscription.

The next step is their parents complaining...

[R C-R]

Just now, MikeW said:

So, has Serif read the EULA that comes with their CC subscription? Serif has a CC subscription. By enabling a user to violate that EULA that they have read and understood, are they at least in the wrong?

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.

[LondonSquirrel]

2 minutes ago, Wosven said:

to display hidden fonts and delete them

It would be far easier to state: do not use cloud fonts.

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Here's your computer, start typing... Nobody in that situation ever asked me to agree to a EULA.

So what? Do you think that excuses anybody from violating any part of an EULA?

[LondonSquirrel]

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

Do you think that excuses anybody from violating any part of an EULA?

Isn't that the point of EULAs? If I have not agreed to that EULA then I am not bound by it.

[Old Bruce]

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Here's your computer, start typing... Nobody in that situation ever asked me to agree to a EULA.

One company I worked at had a notice permanently stuck on the wall. All about turning in people/companies/corporations  who violated EULAs and or used pirated software. 

5 minutes ago, Wosven said:

The next step is their parents complaining...

I do hope, and think, that you do teach students about EULAs and how they really should be aware of the consequences of breaking them? Parents won't just complain if little Johnny is nailed for doing something illegal while trying to finish a school project.

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It would be far easier to state: do not use cloud fonts.

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.

[LondonSquirrel]

1 minute ago, Old Bruce said:

All about turning in people/companies/corporations  who violated EULAs and or used pirated software

And the same people had actually completely read the EULAs themselves? Highly unlikely. I have never met anyone who has actually fully read even a single EULA.

[LondonSquirrel]

Just now, R C-R said:

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.

A good point. If you haven't read the EULA then you have no idea what it states.

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Isn't that the point of EULAs? If I have not agreed to that EULA then I am not bound by it.

Nonsense. If you are an end user, you are bound by its terms whether you have explicitly agreed to them or not.

[Old Bruce]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Nonsense. If you are an end user, you are bound by its terms whether you have explicitly agreed to them or not.

We are getting into the "Ignorance of the law is no defence." I have not read the copyright notice on most of the books I've read, yet I know that I cannot copy the words and expect to not wind up in court with, oh lets say... Anne Tyler suing at me.