🚀 go-pugleaf

> The actual shape of the character cannot be protected by copyright.  This allows
> you, if you wish, to digitize the printed version of the letter and create your
> own bit mapped or PostScript font.  Then, you can copyright the bit map or
> PS program that you created.  


Suppose someone writes a program that converts one bitmap format
to another, then runs a protected font through it.  Furthermore
suppose (to muddy things up a little more) that the conversion
involves some kind of frequency conversion scheme; that is, the
pixels in the output do not correspond one-to-one with the pixels
in the input.  Perhaps after automatic conversion the font will
need hand editing, perhaps not.

Aside from ethical issues, what are the legal issues?  You say
I can digitize the printed version, but can I do what I have
hypothesized above?

And aside from law, but rather at the level of reality, is
there an important difference between the techniques?  Suppose
I write a program that prints a copyrighted bitmap vastly
blown up, then digitize from that hard copy.  I don't even
need fancy equipment--I can look at the thing and tell what
each bit should be.  Then I just type my data in.

What makes one thing different from another?  Some techniques
are much easier to use than others, but I never thought of
the difference between stealing and just plain using as a matter
of how easy it was to do.

Just butting into the conversation.  I don't have any answers.
I do love fonts, and I can see the need for protection of
rights, as well as the need for public domain fonts.  The two
are in competition--but that doesn't mean one or the other
shouldn't exist.  What the form of protective rights should
be is another matter--is a font (or a computer program) really
in the same class as a novel or such?  And then there is the
matter of what obligations the copyright holder should have--
ethically if not legally.

I don't know.  I'm just butting in.