Re: A .notdef glyph

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 15:07:24 EST

  • Next message: David Starner: "Re: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM - pragmatic"

    John Hudson scripsit:

    > By the way, on the subject of copyright, the design is pretty much useless
    > if it is copyrighted, so if William wants anyone to use his design he
    > should make a formal declaration of deposit in the public domain.

    Furthermore, bitmap representations of typography are not copyrightable,
    at least in the U.S.

    Wouldn't the glyph for the GETA SIGN be suitable as a .notdef glyph?
    That seems to be just what GETA is for. 

    -- 
[W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little              John Cowan
febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot       jcowan@reutershealth.com
that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith          www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the benignancy of vegetables.  --And Rosta           www.reutershealth.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 16:00:57 EST