That's great, actually.  Where did we get the initial images printed to 
paper?  Were they also from the original fonts?  That gets you back to 
the origin, and once again, we are relying on the noncopyrightability of 
fonts and bitmap fonts.  While I don't dispute that this is probably 
just fine under current law, my understanding was that some felt it was 
imperative that we evade forever the apple font heritage.  I didn't 
share this view, but some did.

This is the reason I asked this question in the first place.  Let me put 
it plain one more time:

	1) Does anyone in our forum still feel it is essential to remove 
the Apple fonts from the image?; and if there are still those who do,
	2) Were the Accu fonts derived from and with permission of Arts 
Mangement Systems, as owners of these fonts, or from Apple?

Paul F., in particular, seemed to feel that the ownership needed to be 
entirely clear of an Apple font heritage.  Has he changed his views in 
this regard?

On Sunday, June 3, 2001, at 09:13 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:

>> On Sunday, June 3, 2001, at 07:15 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> At 7:35 PM -0400 6/2/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>>>> On the legal side, are you sure these fonts are all completely 
>>>> Kosher?  There seem to me to be direct ripoffs, at least, of the 
>>>> early Apple MacOS Chicago, Chancery and Symbol bitmap fonts.  If we 
>>>> were aspiring to be purely license-clean, there may be some serious 
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>> This was address by Arts Management Systems Ltd (the suppliers of the 
>>> fonts) in the early 1990's via correspondence with Apple Legal 
>>> department. At the time it was a point of concern since these fonts 
>>> were later marketed as a commercial product, which can be found in 
>>> Informix products, Omnis (Blyth Software), and PowerBuilder (Sybase). 
>>> The fact they got sold to these vendors in the early/mid/late 1990's 
>>> is a result of the discussions with Apple.
>>>
>>> The legal reasoning is summed up on
>>> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1849 at the comment of
>>
>> I agree -- after all, those were my arguments!  However, various 
>> members of the community have been troubled by the existence of the 
>> Apple bitmap fonts in the Squeak image, and some have savaged SqC for 
>> failing to remove them, citing to these new fonts as the second coming 
>> of Squeak.  If the Accuny fonts heritage is identical to that of the 
>> Apple bitmap fonts, however, what, then, has been gained?
>
> Well I'm not sure the heritage is identical, I presume the original 
> Squeak fonts were taken directly from Apple files and manipulated by 
> some Squeak code to produce the bit images. Thus a clear heritage/usage 
> of the apple font bits via the reference to the original bits. Also 
> reference to them in the original license and of course they retain the 
> same names which *is* a licence issue. I sure as far as Apple is 
> concerned the Squeak folks just embedded the Apple font files with 
> alterations into Squeak.
>
> Now on the other hand the accufonts were painfully tapped into a 
> Windows 3.0 SDK font bit editor by hand based on images printed to 
> paper which were enlarged by silicon beachs SuperPaint, then compiled 
> into windows 3.0 font files and compared to the macintosh originals for 
> spacing and alignment using the high tech tool of printing to color 
> transparencies and viewing the results by visually overlaying them and 
> squinting. Now I understand these window font files were then read into 
> Squeak by Duane Maxwell & company and translated into the squeak aware 
> bit images. So although they look the same they *do not* share the same 
> heritage from an understanding of were the bits come from. Certainly if 
> they were computer derived from the original apple files (they are not) 
> then we would be no better off.
>
> Note: Since we can make clones of bitmap fonts then I'll ask is there a 
> more proper/legal way to do it since the effort took weeks of time...
>
> BTW the intercharacter spacing for some of the accufonts is different 
> from the original Squeak fonts, I can't say without doing some analysis 
> which font is wrong in the spirit of being bit identical to the 
> original Apple font.
>
>>
>> So here it is, then.  Has AMS granted us rights to "their" fonts, 
>> acknowledged their lack of a Copyright interest, dedicated them to the 
>> public, or not?  If so, can we simply agree that there is no big deal 
>> about using these fonts, any of them, including those in the present 
>> Squeak image?
>
> I'll refer you to the license text found in the stable squeak project 
> files. I'll let other interpret what it means...
>
> Squeak World Tour note:
> 	The Apple and Microsoft fonts referred to in this license have 
> been expunged from this image. There are no Apple or Microsoft derived 
> fonts in this image. Information on the fonts in this image may be 
> found in the script titled, AccuFont License. This image is derived 
> from the Squeak 2.8 base image and virtual machine. Additional code 
> provided by Squeakers world wide has been included
>
> The AccuFontLicense.text file reads:
>
> "Copyright Arts Management Systems, Ltd."
>
> © Arts Management Systems Ltd.
>
>  The fonts distributed as part of this base image are derived from 
> fonts copyright Arts Management Systems, Ltd. Use of the fonts in 
> derivative software products is allowed.
>
>  The fonts should retain their AccuFont names.
>
>  The acknowledgement should read:
>
>> Doug Easterbrook
>> Arts Management Systems Ltd.
>> mailto:doug at artsman.com
>> http://www.artsman.com
>> Phone (403) 215-5701    Fax (403) 215-5704
>
>
>
> -- --
> =========================================================================
> ==
> John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> =========================================================================
> ==
>