You’ll have to read the EULA specific to the fonts in question, but:

1) Mac OS X (at least from v 10.3 on up) can use PC Truetype and Opentype fonts without reformatting. I think PC PostScript fonts work too, but I’m not sure.

2) Windows XP (and consequently most compatible software) can run on Mac hardware, either with Virtual PC on PowerPC models, or with Boot Camp on the newer MacIntel models.

So, if you have your software all installed on the same machine, you should be allowed to use all your fonts on that machine, even if they are used between multiple operating systems, unless the font’s EULA specifically or implicitly excludes this sort of use.

You should share the EULA with us Dan. I’d be curious to read it.

The Windows Vista license (And the Office 2007 EULA too I beleive) require that Windows be ’running’ when the fonts are in use (with the exception of fonts embedded in content).

Cheers, Si

Here are the applicable sections of the Office Pro 2003 EULA. Sections 13 and 14 mean that I would have to remove the software entirely from my PC and install it entirely on my Mac. BUT! Section 1.1(B) clearly must apply to my laptop, regardless of OS. What other kind of portable device is there that can install the software? Only a laptop.

So I can have my cake and eat it too! Californian FB and High Tower Text will fit in nicely with my other fonts on my Powerbook :)

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:

1.1 Installation and use. You may:
(a) install and use a copy of the Software on one personal computer or other device; and
(b) install an additional copy of the Software on a second, portable device for the exclusive use of the primary user of the first copy of the Software.

1.5 License Grant for Media Elements. The Software may include certain photographs, clip art, shapes, animations, sounds, music and video clips that are identified in the Software for your use (together “Media Elements”). You may copy and modify the Media Elements, and license, display and distribute them, along with your modifications as part of your software products and services, including your web sites, but you are not licensed to do any of the following:
• You may not sell, license or distribute copies of the Media Elements by themselves or as part of any collection, product or service if the primary value of the product or service is in the Media Elements.
• You may not grant customers of your product or service any rights to license or distribute the Media Elements.
• You may not license or distribute any of the Media Elements that include representations of identifiable individuals, governments, logos, initials, emblems, trademarks, or entities for any commercial purposes or to express or imply any endorsement or association with any product, service, entity, or activity.
• You may not create obscene or scandalous works, as defined by federal law at the time the work is created, using the Media Elements.

13. SEPARATION OF COMPONENTS. The Software is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one device.

14. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may transfer your copy of the Software to a different device. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former device.

Thanks, Simon. Does that mean as long as the old PC downstairs has Windows running I can use the fonts upstairs on my Powerbook? ;^) KIDDING!!

Dan can you find the bit which Simon just mentioned?

I read over the entire 2003 EULA and that clause doesn’t exist in it. Someone else probably figured out that loophole long before I did, or else why close it the way they did for Office 2007?

It would be nice to have the new Vista fonts on my Mac because I know someone will spec them for use on their webpage, but I guess I’ll have to live without. I’m sure we’ll get sick of them soon enough anyway...

How do the Office Pro 2003 fonts compare with the fonts installed by Office 2004 for Mac?

Will the next version of Office ship with the same font files for both platforms?

There are a bunch of nice Font Bureau typefaces bundled with it. Not your standard core Microsoft fonts. Some really excellent ones actually.

I mentioned Californian FB and High Tower Text above. Californian is the best version available of Goudy’s University of California - Berkeley typeface. High Tower is Hoefler’s version of Jenson. Both are Opentype fonts that include the nice bits like small caps, etc.

Pretty sweet.

The strange thing for me is that I had actually removed these faces from my Windows font folder because I wasn’t sure how they had gotten there. Thanks for the info.

By the way, these fonts are not provided with Office for Mac. I assume this was a business decision, since all of the fonts shipping with Office Pro should work in OS X.

As I recall those ones ship as part of Publisher, which doesn’t exist on the Mac -hence not being part of Mac Office.

Here’s the Vista EULA - http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

b. Font Components. While the software (Windows Vista) is running, you may use its fonts to display and print content. You may only

· embed fonts in content as permitted by the embedding restrictions in the fonts; and

· temporarily download them to a printer or other output device to print content.

Does that work for you Tiff? ;-)

I mentioned Californian FB and High Tower Text above. Californian is the best version available of Goudy’s University of California - Berkeley typeface. High Tower is Hoefler’s version of Jenson. Both are Opentype fonts that include the nice bits like small caps, etc.

I’m still partial to LTC Californian. And although Californian FB does include a fair bit of goodies, it has no OpenType features, just a digital signature, which is the only criteria that demarcates it as OT.

I’m just glad that the concept of EULAs hasn’t leaked out beyond the world of software. Though it probably will soon. God help us.

Software is everywhere - this Canon Camera includes license restrictions... http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/18/canons-eos-1d-an-example-of-all-contr...

You can’t escape the EULA.

You can’t escape the EULA.

I find myself wondering more and more... can they enforce the EULA?

can they enforce the EULA?

see this tread, which is relevant until it starts into American politics.

Wow talk about disheartening. So the Windows Vista EULA controls the Office 2003 EULA? I just downloded the Office 2003 EULA and the word “font” isn’t even mentioned.

According to the Office 2003 EULA:

You may not create obscene or scandalous works, as defined by federal law at the time the work is created, using the Media Elements.

I think some of my Excel spreadsheets might be out of compliance...

*ROFL*

Californian FB does include a fair bit of goodies, it has no OpenType features, just a digital signature, which is the only criteria that demarcates it as OT.
The text weight of Californian FB Version 1.0 that comes with Office 2003 does include 387 glyphs with small caps and oldsyle figures, so you must be mistaken. I also checked it out in InDesign. It works.

LTC Californian looks good also. I only ment to say it was better in comparison the the Berkeleley Oldstyle that is more common.

unless you have a different Californian FB version 1.0, there are no features in the font. Maybe newer builds of InDesign (I’m using CS) access alternate glyphs without features, but i doubt it. be careful those aren’t faux small caps you’re applying when you want the true versions which are actually in the font.

I’m looking at it in Fontexplorer X. The glyphs are there, but I double checked in InDesign and you’re right. False small caps. My bad.

Why would an Opentype font with all the proper glyphs not work?

no feature coding.

Well that’s dumb. I mean, no offense to whoever, but that’s just dumb.
Is it possible to code it in myself? It WOULD be good practice.

If there is no feature coding, could it be that they program(s) the fonts are intended to be used with know where the small caps are? Or will they really just use fake small caps?

Is it possible to code it in myself?

It’s against the FB EULA. if i remember correctly...

EULA!!!

I guess I can’t have my cake and eat it too.

True. Font Bureau does not allow modifications.

Is it possible to code it in myself? It WOULD be good practice.

It would be even better practice if you drew the glyphs too. I wish I had time to do something like that... I don’t think Fred Goudy would mind.

The FB fonts that come with Microsoft products are covered by the MS EULA, not FB’s.

This doesn’t help with modification rights, I don’t think, but MS does have more liberal embedding terms.

WRT embedding we try to negotiate ’editable’ rights for our customers.

Cheers, Si

It would be even better practice if you drew the glyphs too.

this is the reason i’m partial to the LTC Californian... although it doesn’t have additional weights (yet) or italic small caps like the FB version does. i’ll hafta start working on that...

>I just downloded the Office 2003 EULA and the word “font” isn’t even mentioned.

True, font specific information is only included in our most recent EULAs and mostly just authorizes things that people did any-way like embedding and printer-downloading.

Cheers, Si

So the MS EULA covers the FB EULA?

Microsoft Office Pro 2003 EULA

4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

As far as I can tell this is the only mention of editing the software itself.

Repeating part of Section 1.5:

The Software may include certain photographs, clip art, shapes, animations, sounds, music and video clips that are identified in the Software for your use (together “Media Elements”). You may copy and modify the Media Elements...

I don’t know if that applies to fonts at all though.

Dan, does this EULA you keep quoting use the word “modification” anywhere?

Fonts are software. Both technically and with respect to the EULA.

Cheers, So

for anyone interested there is a trial download of Office 2007 available.

http://us7.trymicrosoftoffice.com/default.aspx?culture=en-US

So does adding features to the software constitute reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling the Software, especially as it pertains to font software?

I would say, yes, reverse engineering (etc., also known as modifications) is seen as adding features.

“b. Font Components. While the software (Windows Vista) is running, you may use its fonts to display and print content.”

That sounds like it’s okay then, (to use the fonts on the Mac). I mean, Windows is *always* running somewhere isn’t it?;)

These publisher fonts were the last MS released that work on the Mac and Windows “equally”, so I’m not surprised people want ’em.

“High Tower is Hoefler’s version of Jenson” :-o Say what!?

Unfortunately, when those FB fonts were distributed for Publisher (a long time ago as you’ll see), there were no tools for making OT tables and there were no applications that supported features, so we were only able to make sure the glyphs were there to do a few nice things, but not all of them. We cooked the ingredients, MS set the tables.

We cooked the ingredients, MS set the tables.

Nice one Dave ;-)

Ha! David saw the same loophole that I did.

Dan, I didn’t notice it before, but Hightower was designed by Tobias Frere-Jones while he was with Font Bureau.

Oops. My bad again. Hoefler, Frere-Jones, please forgive me.

But the typeface is mighty fine, just the same. It’s a little slower using since I have to set glyphs by hand if I want the extras, but I like it nonetheless.

So am I clear that I can’t add OT tables to them? Not even for educational use? I think under Fair Use laws I can almost get away with anything as a student. Legally.

But does it actually matter? I’m not reselling or redistributing, just modifying for my own use. Like Bringhurst recommends :)

Of course, the leasor can offer terms, and the leasee can decline - that’s how EULAs work. But I agree Dan, it feels like a victimless crime.

Still, you could argue that FB (or MS) could lose out on the potential revenue from the sale of a (hypothetical) OT version of Californian. Weak?

Fair use and interoperability provisions may come in to all this as well, but a Google search reveals these points to be fairly moot, at least in the U.S. You can also Google “contracts of adhesion” if you’re in to it!

Any one else care to argue?

Still, you could argue that FB (or MS) could lose out on the potential revenue from the sale of a (hypothetical) OT version of Californian. Weak?
But isn’t that the point? They’ve already sold it, because I already have it. Why would I buy another? (So that I wouldn’t have to program anything myself, I suppose.)