[tex-live] Supportfiles for affordable Fontsite fonts - why not on CTAN?

[Robin Fairbairns]

Reinhard Kotucha <reinhard.kotucha at web.de> wrote:

> On 16 March 2010 Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> 
>  > Without looking at the fonts themselves, and looking only at
>  > the price, I would suspect that they are clones : low-price
>  > rip-offs from which the original type designer gets not
>  > a single penny by way of licence fee.
> 
> Not necessarily.  Hermann Zapf told me that the Palatino fonts
> provided by Bitstream and URW were created by him.  They couldn't be
> called "Palatino" because Linotype registered the name "Palatino" as a
> trademark.  Hermann Zapf is not happy with it.
> 
> There are also some fonts which were designed decades (Futura, Sabon)
> or even centuries (Garamond) ago.  I think that nobody has to pay any
> licence fee to the designer or his surviving dependants any more.  

not to the designer.  however, we know that digitising a face involves a
lot more investment than just collecting a bag of bits, and that's what
is being protected, for many fonts.

we've heard that some fontsite fonts are very poorly set up.  is this
because fontsite regenerated outlines from a metal cut, or because they
tried to distance themselves from the existing digital font they were
aiming to resell?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDiDATbIG-o&feature=related

(i already posted that link to c.t.t)

> But I must admit that I don't know where "Opus" comes from.

bloom county?