On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 01:06  PM, Henrik Gedenryd wrote:

> Lex Spoon wrote:
>
>>
>> 3. Fonts re-agreement.  Since we can replace the fonts, I'd rather we
>>
>
> These are my 2 cents:
>
> I've summarized the font licensing situation at:
>
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/fontsAndLicenses
>
> In short, it says that the bitmap fonts copyright was an issue when 
> Squeak-L
> was written, but it is no longer so, since legal cases have ruled that
> bitmap fonts cannot be copyrighted. I.e. neither Apple nor anyone else 
> can
> copyright a bitmap font.
>
> Thus the font parts of the license are no longer an issue, but of 
> course we
> could still replace them anyway to be "sure sure".

I agree with Henrik's legal analysis concerning bitmap fonts.  The cases 
I reviewed as of about two years ago seem to fall slam-dunk against a 
cause arising under the Copyright Act.  However, why leave any gaping 
sores?  In theory, at least, Apple can still bring a cause of action for 
breach of contract (since the license agreement restricts use of the 
font) and, more important, Apple is not likely to ever expressly concede 
that they don't own (at least a litigable) claim to the fonts.

Ultimately, we need Apple to sign off on the other stuff, and hence to 
feel warm and fuzzy toward us.  So my recommendation is to eliminate the 
bitmap fonts Apple provided, and replace them with an independently 
developed equivalent.  We might ask if they mind if we just mess with 
the fonts themselves afterwards, but not as part of this transaction.