Font Problems on OS X

users
#1

LibreOffice (3.5.3.2) doesn't show all my fonts. I don't think it's
necessarily a problem with how the fonts are installed - I've tried
putting them in both ~/Library/Fonts and /Library/Fonts. Also, every
other application can access them just fine (including NeoOffice and
vanilla oo.org). I'm not sure how to debug this. Nothing in the
preferences settings exposes where it's pulling fonts from or if the
list is cached somehow and needs to be reloaded. Anyone have any
insights?

#2

Hi Andy,

LibreOffice (3.5.3.2) doesn't show all my fonts. I don't think it's
necessarily a problem with how the fonts are installed - I've tried
putting them in both ~/Library/Fonts and /Library/Fonts. Also, every
other application can access them just fine (including NeoOffice and
vanilla oo.org). I'm not sure how to debug this. Nothing in the
preferences settings exposes where it's pulling fonts from or if the
list is cached somehow and needs to be reloaded. Anyone have any
insights?

PSType 1 fonts by any chance ? There was a discussion last week on this
list about the same subject (missing fonts).

Alex

#3

LibreOffice (3.5.3.2) doesn't show all my fonts. I don't think it's
necessarily a problem with how the fonts are installed - I've tried
putting them in both ~/Library/Fonts and /Library/Fonts. Also, every
other application can access them just fine (including NeoOffice and
vanilla oo.org). I'm not sure how to debug this. Nothing in the
preferences settings exposes where it's pulling fonts from or if the
list is cached somehow and needs to be reloaded. Anyone have any
insights?

PSType 1 fonts by any chance ? There was a discussion last week on this
list about the same subject (missing fonts).

Quite possible. Each font has three files associated with it: one's a
PS Type 1, one is a font suitcase, and on is a .afm file. Beyond that
I'm a bit over my head in terms of font types on OS X.

#4

I think fonts are completely handled via a link to the OS, so perhaps
you might try checking fontbook and making sure that the fonts are
indeed available to the system as OSX can sometimes be peckish about fonts.

#5

I think fonts are completely handled via a link to the OS,  so perhaps
you might try checking fontbook and making sure that the fonts are
indeed available to the system as OSX can sometimes be peckish about fonts.

There are indeed in fontbook, under both computer and user.

#6

There was talk about using OTF formatted fonts with Mac.

I was wondering why OSX is still using Type-1 fonts with the more modern TTF and OTF formats, plus a few newer ones that MS and other have been trying to push.

Is there any advantage to using Type-1 fonts over the other two formats, with OSX?

It there a way to replace the "problem" Type-1 fonts with TTF or OTF, or use a 99.9% similar font as a replacement font?

In my semi-private collection of fonts [over 100,000 files], most likely I would have a 98% or 99%+ similar non-Adobe font as a replacement for the Adobe fonts in the collection. I think that, if you do not count the specialty fonts, over 25% of the serif fonts are 99% similar to the other serif fonts and half of what is left is at least 80% similar to each other. The same numbers could be true for the san-serif fonts.

I started collecting for a font project and later I started looking for as many free fonts as I can to replace the paid fonts in my collection - like finding free replacements for the Adobe collection from pre-2006.

So, with all the fonts out there and the use of TTF and OTF fonts, is there any reason for using Type-1 fonts? Even Adobe has most, if not all, of their fonts in OTF format.

I just found that having 2 or 3 files to define 1 font does not make sense anymore.

If OSX requires it, well, I am not a Mac person since I put my first PC together from a kit at a cost of less than a 5th that of the Apple systems out at the same time. Actually, I worked with the original Mac system at a college when they just started coming on to the market. But I went PC when I could bey a system due to cost and never worked much on a Mac since then and not at all since 2000.

#7

Hi Andy,

The thread I mentioned in my previous response :

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.user/21042

would appear to indicate that not all of the AFM files were present for
that user.

He also got around the problem by converting his Type1 font to TTF.

Alex

#8

Is there any advantage to using Type-1 fonts over the other two formats,
with OSX?

It there a way to replace the "problem" Type-1 fonts with TTF or OTF, or use
a 99.9% similar font as a replacement font?

There's no advantage. The main catch is the company I licensed the
fonts from no longer exist, and my license agreement doesn't permit
converting them. Obviously the odds of getting sued are pretty much
zero, but in principle I try to abide by agreements.

I can use NeoOffice for anything that needs that font; it's just kind
of a pain since LO is a better program otherwise.

#9

Hi :slight_smile:
Quick!  Re-licence the legacy fonts under Creative Coomons copyleft to prevent some other company being far less honest than you are being.  I take it a company could easily and safely copyright those fonts and then charge people for using them?  Some companies put quite a lot of effort into profiting off other people's work in this way. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#10

Contact me off the list and I will see if I can find you some TTF or OTF replacements. I must have some somewhere in my 100,000+ fonts. - webmaster @ krackedpress.com

#11

I'm certainly not a lawyer or anything, but I don't think abandonware
automatically enters public domain. The copyright remains valid even
if the company holding it has no assets. That's pretty well
established with software. I doubt it would be different with fonts.

#12

Hi :slight_smile:
So, a company would be taking a small risk by grabbing it.  If they grab enough then statistics work in their favour.  I'm not a copyright legal expert but i wonder if applying a copyleft agreement would create enough uncertainty as to prevent the rights being subverted by some profit hungry company? 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#13

I'm certainly not a lawyer or anything, but I don't think abandonware
automatically enters public domain. The copyright remains valid even
if the company holding it has no assets. That's pretty well
established with software. I doubt it would be different with fonts.

Not a lawyer also but for a work (any work) to enter public domain one
two events must occur:

1. The statutory copyright period must end, including any renewals
applied for and granted.
2. The owner of the copyright places the work in public domain.

Work is a legal term including any writing, photograph, software, image,
film, song, recording, etc. Abandonware is work that likely still has
enforceable copyright but either the original owner (a company) is out
of business or the ownership can not be determined.

Only the copyright owner can release a work under Creative Commons or
similar license.

I do not if "Fair Use" would allow an owner of a copy to convert the
file format for personal use only.

Note under current US copyright law the copyright exists once the work
is "finished" and registration with the US government though highly
recommended is optional.

#14

Hi :slight_smile:
So, a company would be taking a small risk by grabbing it. If they grab enough then statistics work in their favour. I'm not a copyright legal expert but i wonder if applying a copyleft agreement would create enough uncertainty as to prevent the rights being subverted by some profit hungry company?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

The owner of the copyright can sue for infringement so if a company or
anyone else tried to squat on the copyright. To do anything legally with
any work you need permission from the copyright owner. The permission
should by in writing either via a publicly posted Creative Commons type
license from the owner or a contract granting permission by the owner to
the user. If one claims an invalid ownership of the copyright I am not
sure of all the legal consequences other than I do not want to find out.
This is why many FOSS projects ask the creators to release their work
under the appropriate software license or Creative Commons license to
avoid these problems later and to clearly establish the end user rights
upfront. IMHO a common misconception is that Creative Commons
invalidates the copyright when it actually grants specific, blanket
usage rights to any user while reserving all other rights to the owner.

The problem with abandonware is that the copyright is possibly owned by
defunct company. depending on the origin of the work and any relevant
contracts; the copyright may have reverted to someone else (most likely
the original creator) or is still owned by the defunct company. The
problem is finding these records to determine who owns the copyright.
Even if one is diligent one could easily miss the relevant records and
then be sued by the actual owner of the abandonware copyright. Also,
abandonware is often covered by the traditional "all rights reserved"
copyright notice and not a Creative Commons type license. If the
copyright is actually still owned by the defunct company you have the
problem of who has legal authority to grant you permission.

I keep up with copyright issues because I know several professional
photographers and am advanced amateur photographer. Having a working
knowledge of the copyright law is important for me both to protect my
interests and avoid infringement.

#15

Hi :slight_smile:
Thanks Jay.

So, in effect, all abandonware is just unusable until some company grabs it except for people that may be able to prove a legitimate right to use it.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#16

Hi :slight_smile:
I don't think we have a "Public Domain" in the UK (queue nice pics of the Queen waving) and i don't think we have "fair use" either.  We never quite got around to overthrowing our monarchy and still have an annual celebration of one of the failures where put a guy on a big bonfire.  Not a real guy, of course, more like a scarecrow or like a life-sized wickerman (not a giant one). 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#17

Hi :slight_smile:
I don't think we have a "Public Domain" in the UK (queue nice pics of the Queen waving) and i don't think we have "fair use" either. We never quite got around to overthrowing our monarchy and still have an annual celebration of one of the failures where put a guy on a big bonfire. Not a real guy, of course, more like a scarecrow or like a life-sized wickerman (not a giant one).
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

There are treaties about copyrights and patents. AFAIK copyrights will
expire in all countries and after they expire anyone can use the work
without asking permission. In US law this is entering the public domain.
How long the copyright last and if it is renewable will be in the
national statutes. I would expect any copyright on the original Oliver
Twist or War of the Worlds has expired.

Fair Use is a doctrine in US law that allows one to use a work (in whole
or part) without permission under specific conditions such as for
parody, brief quotation. I do not know if other countries have a similar
doctrine.

#18

Is your ambition to be wrong on all counts?

Brian Barker