Fonts allowed in a packaged file

[MikeW]

31 minutes ago, R C-R said:

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.

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?

[R C-R]

32 minutes ago, Wosven said:

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 obvious solution for teachers & students is to avoid using any fonts or other resources encumbered by EULA or copyright restrictions for coursework. This applies not just to APub but to anything that they might use for archiving or similar needs. Teachers can explain why this is necessary & that they need to careful outside class to understand & comply with any & all EULAs that encumber anything they use.

[Wosven]

22 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I have never met anyone who has actually fully read even a single EULA.

Since the one for the cloud fonts is only 4 pages long, and easy to read, for once I can say "I read it". usually, I just search and check some specific points hoping it'll be understandable before agreeing or not. But most of the time, they're done in a way that prevent people to read them.

 

8 minutes ago, R C-R said:

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

"read" is more appropriate, since a lot of users agree without reading.

 

2 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

I have not read the copyright notice on most of the books I've read

Those are usually simple: you can only quote part of the text (and quote is a limited part of the text, too much, and it's copying).

[LondonSquirrel]

13 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.

That's not true. 

[LondonSquirrel]

6 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

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.

Do not confuse copyright with EULAs. They are completely different things. An EULA my or may not include permission to copy. E.g. SIL fonts (https://software.sil.org/scheherazade/). Snippet: 'This font software is free to use, modify and redistribute according to the terms of the SIL Open Font License.'

[LondonSquirrel]

8 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I don't think you understand Serif's complicity in allowing a user to violate their agreement.

You can say the same about Apple for having tools which copy files.

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

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.

We have been through this before. It is like saying a tool maker is complicit for making it possible for a tool user to use the tool in an illegal manner. That just won't stand up in court.

7 minutes ago, MikeW said:

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?

I have no objection to that.

[Old Bruce]

1 minute ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Do not confuse copyright with EULAs. They are completely different things. 

Okay, valid point, apples and oranges.... The EULA is applicable whether or not you have actually read it.

[R C-R]

7 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

20 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.

That's not true. 

How so? If it was not true, then could not anybody legally use anything with an EULA however they wanted simply by avoiding explicitly agreeing to them?

[LondonSquirrel]

1 minute ago, Old Bruce said:

Okay, valid point, apples and oranges.... The EULA is applicable whether or not you have actually read it.

In Europe (and the UK still), EULAs are basically considered part of a contract. If you have not agreed to that contract then you are not a party to it. If somebody gives me a laptop already set up, and I have no EULA is presented to me when I use it, I am not the one who clicked the 'I agree' button, and I am not a party to the other person's contract. It could be the person who clicked the 'I agree' button is in breach of the EULA, but I am not as I was never a party to it.

But once again, don't confuse EULAs with copyright. The copyright still exists.

[R C-R]

7 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Okay, valid point, apples and oranges.... The EULA is applicable whether or not you have actually read it.

But so are copyrights. Both place certain restrictions on the use or reuse of intellectual property owned by someone other than yourself.

[Old Bruce]

37 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

If you have not agreed to that contract then you are not a party to it.

Then you cannot use the software. To use the software you have to agree to the EULA.

[R C-R]

43 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

In Europe (and the UK still), EULAs are basically considered part of a contract. If you have not agreed to that contract then you are not a party to it.

Just to be clear about this, are you saying that wherever an EULA is "basically" (whatever that means) considered part of a contract, if you are not explicitly a party to it, then you personally have no legal obligation to abide by its terms?

[MikeW]

45 minutes ago, R C-R said:

We have been through this before. It is like saying a tool maker is complicit for making it possible for a tool user to use the tool in an illegal manner. That just won't stand up in court. ...

Depends. Such lawsuits have been successful in court before in other arenas. Think of the Sandy Hook lawsuit against Remington Arms over how they marketed the AR-15 in question. Or the lawsuits against drug makers for opioid abuses. 

However, I think if I designed a tool and one function of it enabled something illegal, and I tried it to make sure that illegal use succeeded, then are not I myseld guilty of my use? If I then release/sell that tool and someone then uses that as-designed function to do the same illegal thing I designed that function for, could I then be attatched to any future lawsuit against "my user"?

[Old Bruce]

4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

However, I think if I designed a tool and one function of it enabled something illegal, and I tried it to make sure that illegal use succeeded, then are not I myseld guilty of my use? If I then release/sell that tool and someone then uses that as-designed function to do the same illegal thing I designed that function for, could I then be attatched to any future lawsuit against "my user"?

I am not a lawyer, to say nothing about being not a contract law lawyer. Not being an Adobe Cloud Font user I have to rely on the license available for perusal on their website. Having said that I have to say that there doesn't seem to be the sort of restrictions on Adobe's cloud fonts that I had originally assumed there to be.

The use of packaged fonts after Joe User's Cloud Font subscription has lapsed would be illegal, the use of the fonts by me, a non Adobe user, would be illegal regardless of whether or not Jane User, Jane being the person who sent me the package, has a subscription. Having said all that, I am not convinced that gathering the fonts into a package folder is forbidden.

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Depends

Yes, it does. But here I think it is important to consider that it is not mandatory to use the tool provided by APub at all, nor is it marketed in a manner that suggests that it is.

As for using it specifically to do something illegal, as I understand it some restricted fonts do permit certain uses that the Adobe Cloud fonts do not, so I am not sure it is as simple as preventing all fonts flagged as restricted from being packaged.

[MikeW]

15 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

I am not a lawyer, to say nothing about being not a contract law lawyer. Not being an Adobe Cloud Font user I have to rely on the license available for perusal on their website. Having said that I have to say that there doesn't seem to be the sort of restrictions on Adobe's cloud fonts that I had originally assumed there to be.

The use of packaged fonts after Joe User's Cloud Font subscription has lapsed would be illegal, the use of the fonts by me, a non Adobe user, would be illegal regardless of whether or not Jane User, Jane being the person who sent me the package, has a subscription. Having said all that, I am not convinced that gathering the fonts into a package folder is forbidden.

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.

[lacerto]

Cloud fonts have pros and contras, similarly as non-cloud based fonts.

I want to have both alternatives, and also welcome open source/free fonts, even when provided by such Adobe/Microsoft/Apple-comparable evil corporations as Google. If e.g. Adobe Fonts kind of a low-cost professional service (just compare the prices with those of e.g. Monotype) is lost because of large-scale illegal distribution of free versions of these fonts (helped by competitive companies like Serif), it is a sad thing for many working in the business. Font license agreements can be absurd, and there are good reasons to avoid cloud-based fonts in certain kinds of projects, or for categorically opposing the whole principle, but ability to use a large collection of high-quality fonts and pay just EUR 10 per month is something that was never really available back in the "good old times". Anyone who sees license restrictions just as kinds of monopolistic plots or restrictions on free communication have probably never earned their living on graphic design. Today there are plenty of alternatives for less graphic design oriented users, Google alone has 1,365 font families (based on the Wikipedia article), so why even bother trying to work with illegally acquired "corporate" type?

We have been in this business since the middle of 1980s and started with .WFN fonts that came with CorelDRAW (subsequently replaced by "1,000 fonts", first in Type 1 and then in TrueType and OTF TrueType format by Bitstream, which later was hogged by Monotype). That alone was a good alternative for the mix of totally obscure-source (mostly illegally copied) fonts that could be downloaded from the BBSs of that time. We have subsequently purchased licenses for FontFolio 8 and 11.1, and numerous licenses for individual font families created by miscellaneous foundries, whether purchased directly from the designers or providers like Adobe, Linotype and Monotype. There has been some culture and technological finesse involved in font creation, well worth paying (a bit extra), and I think that there still is. I can understand that these kinds of appreciations are nonsensical to many posters in this thread, but personally I think that development of human rights in the field of typography could well be left in the hands of vocal preachers of this ideology, without Serif's assistance.

[lacerto]

6 hours ago, Hens said:

Otherwise with that much history ,it must be slim to make such a mistake to provide the tool as it is now.

It may well be, and I can see at least in short perspective benefits of using this feature for archiving purposes (as "live" cloud fonts have the intrinsic problem of not being able to secure the design when working with original resources),

But if these kinds of direct competitor violations/aggressions eventually result in further restrictions (e.g. availability of Adobe cloud fonts just within Adobe or selective authorized apps), or total failure of the cloud font concept, it would be a sad development. Personally I just cannot see Serif as an initiator of any significant development in this business and I see these kinds of implementations (if really intentional and not just oversights) as kinds of back stabbings of a wanna-be copycat... They have some genuinely good stuff so IMO they really do not need this.

[R C-R]

Query: Does anybody here have a handle on how exactly Affinity determines if a font is restricted, & also if there is any way for the app to determine exactly what the restrictions are?

[kenmcd]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

Query: Does anybody here have a handle on how exactly Affinity determines if a font is restricted, & also if there is any way for the app to determine exactly what the restrictions are?

From my post above:

Embedding info is in the: OS/2 and Windows Metrics table (OS/2)
The Embedding setting is: fsType
That setting will just be a number.
The meaning of those numbers is here:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/os2#fstype

From that page:

Quote

Usage permissions. Valid fonts must set at most one of bits 1, 2 or 3; bit 0 is permanently reserved and must be zero. Valid values for this sub-field are 0, 2, 4 or 8. The meaning of these values is as follows:

0: Installable embedding: the font may be embedded, and may be permanently installed for use on a remote systems, or for use by other users. The user of the remote system acquires the identical rights, obligations and licenses for that font as the original purchaser of the font, and is subject to the same end-user license agreement, copyright, design patent, and/or trademark as was the original purchaser.

2: Restricted License embedding: the font must not be modified, embedded or exchanged in any manner without first obtaining explicit permission of the legal owner.

4: Preview & Print embedding: the font may be embedded, and may be temporarily loaded on other systems for purposes of viewing or printing the document. Documents containing Preview & Print fonts must be opened “read-only”; no edits can be applied to the document.

8: Editable embedding: the font may be embedded, and may be temporarily loaded on other systems. As with Preview & Print embedding, documents containing Editable fonts may be opened for reading. In addition, editing is permitted, including ability to format new text using the embedded font, and changes may be saved.

So applications read that from the fonts.

[MikeW]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

Query: Does anybody here have a handle on how exactly Affinity determines if a font is restricted, & also if there is any way for the app to determine exactly what the restrictions are?

There is a fsType bit/flag in a font that Serif can read that regards permissions. But I don't think that's the whole story here.

The Adobe desktop license does not restrict the making of backups, nor packaging, of fonts with the print/preview flag set (such as those in the main thread here that are cloud versions). 

So, InDesign/QXP will absolutely not package a cloud font. Both will package the same font, with the same permissions set as per the cloud fonts in this thread, if that font is a "regular" desktop license version. There is no "error" or warning as regards such a font in ID/QXP in the packaging dialog.

APub reads that flag (print/preview) and reports that it is a restricted font. This is different than ID/QXP as neither report the same font as Restricted.

Restricted has a specific meaning in the fsType flag:

So, to me, either Serif is conflating Preview & Print embedability with Restricted, or the Restricted designation shows Serif knows it is restricted font based upon its location.

[MikeW]

It would be interesting, to me, to use a cloud font with the fsType bit set to embeddable whether Serif still flags it as Restricted. That would then seem to indicate Serif knows cloud fonts should not be packaged. 

[kenmcd]

We need Affinity's definitions of Modified and Restricted.

[lacerto]

8 hours ago, R C-R said:

Query: Does anybody here have a handle on how exactly Affinity determines if a font is restricted, & also if there is any way for the app to determine exactly what the restrictions are?

I think that this has already been tried to be answered multiple times in this thread: handling of cloud based fonts (their installation locations) needs dedicated (manual) handilng in code. If there is no separate implementation (meaning that an app simply acts based on native font API), then it cannot map cloud fonts to their installation paths, which automatically also means that these fonts will not be included e.g. in packaging routines of that specific app.

I do not think that operating system font API (neither on Windows or macOS) provides any information on whether a font resource is "cloud based"  or "non-cloud based". This information is basically trivial/irrelevant to the operating system and apps that enumerate fonts that are available.

UPDATE:

As for other restrictions (e.g. regarding which embedding capabilities are allowed), this information is provided similarly to the operating system as equivalent information for non-cloud based fonts.

For Windows, the reference can be found here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/gdi/font-embedding-reference or more specifically here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/t2embapi/nf-t2embapi-ttgetembeddingtype. 

But I do not think that these kinds of restrictions have any relevance as regards packaging of fonts. The listed properties for used (not yet packaged) and packaged (not yet installed) fonts seem to be erroneously reported anyway (there can be status conflicts already when listing the same information on the Summary and Fonts tabs).

UPDATE: If you specifically asked the meaning of "Restricted" attribute of embedding capabilities, this is explained in the documentation referred above like this:

Quote

EMBED_NOEMBEDDING

Restricted License Embedding. The font must not be modified, embedded, or exchanged in any manner without first obtaining permission of the legal owner.

For more information, see here:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/t2embapi/nf-t2embapi-ttloadembeddedfont