On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:49:15 -0800
Louis Santillan <lpsantil_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Mattias Andrée
> <maandree_AT_kth.se> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:06:12 +0100
> > Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> quentin_AT_c9x.me (mpu) writes:
> >>
> >> > Ben Woolley <tautolog_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> What licenses are the tools and the font? There
> >> >> doesn't seem to be a copyright statement or license
> >> >> anywhere. Maybe
> >> >>I am missing something obvious...
> >> >
> >> > The license and the font are now public domain, maybe
> >> > I'll put a BSD license on the font some day, when I
> >> > judge the quality makes it worth it.
> >>
> >> In the US and in Germany, pixel fonts can not be
> >> copyrighted and are thus public domain.
> >>
> >
> > WTF‽ That is the stupidest thing ever. They are equally
> > difficult and time consuming to make.
>
> However, the font name is copyrightable which is often
> way you see similar looking fonts (possibly copied) with
> a derivative name.
>
I think you mean trademarkable. On the subject
on legal matters. Some legislation do not require
an trademark statement or use of trademark symbols.
And I do not think any require the, so often used,
trademark acknowledgement.
Received on Wed Dec 23 2015 - 17:54:05 CET