At the end of the day it's just a tool.... What if there are more restrictive flags in the font, but user has license for the font? Then he cannot use the tool? It might be impractical to get a new version of the font from the originator that has the bits you're looking for -- probably just create more confusion. See how Font Squirrel handles this: http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fontface/generator
--josh On 9/22/11 8:05 PM, "suzuki toshiya" <[email protected]> wrote: >Is it acceptable that the font extraction from PDF is enabled when the >embedded font includes OS/2 table and its fsType permits the permanent >installation onto remote system (fsType == 0x0000)? > >Although the request to developers of the software generating PDF (like >cairo, ghostscript etc) for the embedding with OS/2 table would be >important >to make the idea pragmatic, I think such restriction prevents the troubles >caused by the conflicts of the understanding of font permissions. > >Regards, >mpsuzuki > >Josh Richardson wrote: >> The fonts that are embedded in a PDF may come from any source, and be >> completely restriction-free. It's really up to the user of the software >> to decide. Note that there are many many many other open source >>programs >> that extract fonts from PDFs. >> >> --josh >> >> On 9/22/11 6:04 PM, "Leonard Rosenthol" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Boy, your lawyer needs to read up on IP law :). >>> >>> Since you do NOT have a license for the font data contained in the PDF, >>> your software has NO RIGHTS to use that information for anything other >>> than rendering the glyphs in the PDF. You certainly have NO rights to >>> convert the format - in fact, doing so is a clear and distinct >>>violation >>> of the font licenses. >>> >>> As such, if your patches to pdf2html extract the font data for use in >>>the >>> HTML - I STRONGLY recommend that the code NOT be accepted into the >>>master >>> repository. >>> >>> Leonard >>> >>> >>> On 9/22/11 6:40 PM, "Josh Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not a lawyer, but I did check with one. I don't think software >>>>can >>>> violate your IP/licenses, at least as long as that software doesn't >>>> contain unauthorized copyrighted material -- which pdftohtml does not >>>> AFAIK -- I certainly didn't add any to it. >>>> >>>> Best, --josh >>>> >>>> On 9/22/11 3:08 PM, "Leonard Rosenthol" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I can't recall what you said about this in the past, but since I was >>>>> just >>>>> dealing with it today. >>>>> >>>>> What do you do about embedded fonts? >>>>> >>>>> As my company (Adobe) sells/creates fonts, I want to make sure that >>>>> pdftohtml won't be violating our IP/licenses. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>> Leonard >>>>> >>>>> On 9/22/11 5:51 PM, "Josh Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/22/11 12:20 PM, "Jonathan Kew" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> More generally, it is not possible to recreate useful XHTML (or >>>>>>> similar) >>>>>>> documents from arbitrary PDF files with anything like 100% >>>>>>> reliability, >>>>>>> because many PDF files do not contain adequate information to >>>>>>> accurately >>>>>>> map the rendered glyphs back to correct Unicode text, or to >>>>>>>reliably >>>>>>> reconstruct the proper flow of text. Constructs such as ActualText >>>>>>>may >>>>>>> help, but are often lacking from real-world PDF documents. >>>>>> W.r.t. rendering glyphs, we get around the problem of missing >>>>>>unicode >>>>>> mappings by taking any glyph without a unicode mapping and >>>>>>assigning it >>>>>> an >>>>>> offset in the private space of Unicode. This produces the correct >>>>>> visual >>>>>> result in the XHTML, but not a full semantic representation. If >>>>>> someone's >>>>>> interested, they could get the semantics right too by >>>>>>pattern-matching >>>>>> the >>>>>> glyph against an appropriate Unicode font. >>>>>> >>>>>> W.r.t. the flow of text, there have been other threads on this >>>>>>topic, >>>>>> but >>>>>> pdftohtml does make some attempt, and I believe it's possible to do >>>>>> this >>>>>> to a high degree of accuracy, maybe >99% -- that said, noone has >>>>>>done >>>>>> it >>>>>> yet, so either it's harder than I think, or no-one has cared enough >>>>>>to >>>>>> really try (and I still fall into that camp.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, --josh >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> poppler mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> poppler mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> poppler mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > > _______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
