> The
> font issue was of great concern to exobox, as it should be to any 
> corporate
> entity involved with distributing anything based on Squeak.
>
> It should also be stated that the Accufonts are not "license-free" - 
> they
> are intended to be distributed under the same terms as Squeak itself.

Just between us mice:

1.  Fonts (in the sense of letterforms) cannot be protected by 
Copyright.  Period.  Well-settled law.  If you want to protect a font, 
try design patents, but that's about it.

2.  Bitmap fonts (in the sense of files of bitmap fonts) under current 
case law are treated as unprotectible fonts.  There are several cases 
stating so expressly.

3.  Outline fonts (because of the programmed "hinting") under current 
case law are treated as protectible computer programs.  There are two 
cases supporting this proposition.

So, contract provisions attempting to protect the unprotectible bitmap 
fonts may well find themselves preempted under the Copyright Act (but 
see the ProCD case in the 7th Circuit).  Likewise, restrictions on the 
lovingly hand-crafted, but unprotectible, Accufonts are probably 
inappropriate, regardless of the intentions.

These are merely legal musings, not legal advice -- I've read a few 
cases and checked the validity of these legal propositions, but haven't 
really done a fully lawyerly job determining the issue.  In short, the 
font issue is very likely a tempest in a teapot.  Its just that changing 
fonts is so much easier than leaving baggage behind that might get 
overly cautious ultra-conservative lawyers a bit nervous.

(BTW, at the time Squeak-L was drafted, there was good reason to believe 
font files were protectible; most of the relevant case law came down in 
the past few years).