6 ms·

If you can spare extra pixels, Tom Thumb (3x5) [1] is more legible. The upper case M and N are somewhat hard to distinguish without context, but it's the only m

If you can spare extra pixels, Tom Thumb (3x5) [1] is more legible. The upper case M and N are somewhat hard to distinguish without context, but it's the only major flaw compared to this one. Tom Thumb is also Public Domain (CC0). [1] https://robey.lag.net/2010/01/23/tiny-monospace-font.html https://robey.lag.net/2010/01/23/tiny-monospace-font.html

CharlesW 3y ago
Wonderful! To me, this is the smallest usable (vs. novelty) bitmapped font. [EDIT: Deleted “2-bit” silliness.]
- xanderlewis 3y ago
  What makes it 2-bit rather than 1-bit?
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    Doh! Thank you, comment updated.
kube-system 3y ago
FYI: all typefaces (e.g. bitmap fonts) are de facto public domain in the US. (unless they've been design patented) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...
- skrebbel 3y ago
  I’m confused that this is the case yet so many font foundries are in the US. Does it mean only their foreign users need to pay for font licenses?
  - orlp 3y ago
    Not a lawyer, not legal advice. The actual font files (e.g. TTF and OTF) are protected by copyright, but the design itself is not. You can copy the design to the minute details, but you'll have to make your own font. This is a lot of work for hundreds or thousands of glyphs, plus kerning.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    The format those files are delivered in generally do not simply contain a typeface. They contain code that draws the typeface, which is a computer program, and that is covered by copyright.
- eru 3y ago
  It's one of those weird exceptions that legal systems are full of. (There might be good reasons for this particular loophole, just like there are good reasons for any other loophole, if you dig deep enough. But the total sum makes for an overly complicated system.)
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I wouldn't really call it a loophole, it's explicitly excluded in the law. Given that copyright only applies to original works of a sufficient level of authorship, I think there's a valid perspective that typefaces are excluded.
    - eru 3y ago
      Yes, not sure whether loophole is the right word. But it's a complication and exception. > Given that copyright only applies to original works of a sufficient level of authorship, I think there's a valid perspective that typefaces are excluded. Typefaces are typically a lot more sophisticated than when I'm taking a selfie or jot down some nonsense words and declare it a poem. Yet, the latter two are protected by copyright law.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        Well yeah, sophistication isn't part of the criteria for copyright protection. I think the perspective applied here is along the lines that typefaces are more of a tool that authors use, rather than an product of authorship. Likewise, the design of a paintbrush wouldn't be eligible for copyright. Even a very sophisticated paintbrush. Both typefaces and paintbrushes are eligible for patents, though.
        eru 3y ago
        Speculating a bit: I think the historical perspective had a much narrower focus on what could be put under copyright. That's why (in the US at least) photographs and movies (and computer code?) wasn't originally included, and only got included over time via judicial decisions. Typefaces just naturally fell outside of the original narrow focus, and just never got moved into the focus.
- userbinator 3y ago
  As computer programs are protected as literary works in the United States, a font file program can only be eligible for copyright protection in the US if the source code of the computer instructions within the file was written by a human; due to the prominence of modern user-friendly digital font editor programs, this method of creating a font file is now quite rare. Very interesting. IANAL but presumably this means that anyone can trace a font automatically, generating a new one that looks exactly the same, but isn't subject to copyright.
  - StableAlkyne 3y ago
    You can, but you'll still end up paying legal fees to defend yourself if Adobe or Monotype comes after you if their rent team sees a public design from a company not on their list. Maybe it won't matter if you're a hobbyist, but they both go after businesses over alleged unlicensed use.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      I would presume Adobe and Monotype file design patents for the design and trademarks for the name of each font.
samsolomon 3y ago
That's pretty cool! A couple years ago I designed a similar 3x5 typeface for Salesloft's icon set. It was designed with a similar style—outer/inner radius, square terminals—as the icons. Personally, the centered descender on the Q is more clear with tiny typefaces. https://solomon.io/salesloft-icon-fundamentals/#alphanum https://solomon.io/salesloft-icon-fundamentals/#alphanum
acdw 3y ago
> Please do not post this article to Hacker News. oop!
uxp8u61q 3y ago
Site is dead.
worthless-trash 3y ago
Heads up thats http:// http:// the https:// https:// is not workinng for me.

CharlesW 3y ago

Wonderful! To me, this is the smallest usable (vs. novelty) bitmapped font. [EDIT: Deleted “2-bit” silliness.]

xanderlewis 3y ago
What makes it 2-bit rather than 1-bit?
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Doh! Thank you, comment updated.

kube-system 3y ago

FYI: all typefaces (e.g. bitmap fonts) are de facto public domain in the US. (unless they've been design patented) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...

skrebbel 3y ago
I’m confused that this is the case yet so many font foundries are in the US. Does it mean only their foreign users need to pay for font licenses?
- orlp 3y ago
  Not a lawyer, not legal advice. The actual font files (e.g. TTF and OTF) are protected by copyright, but the design itself is not. You can copy the design to the minute details, but you'll have to make your own font. This is a lot of work for hundreds or thousands of glyphs, plus kerning.
- kube-system 3y ago
  The format those files are delivered in generally do not simply contain a typeface. They contain code that draws the typeface, which is a computer program, and that is covered by copyright.
eru 3y ago
It's one of those weird exceptions that legal systems are full of. (There might be good reasons for this particular loophole, just like there are good reasons for any other loophole, if you dig deep enough. But the total sum makes for an overly complicated system.)
- kube-system 3y ago
  I wouldn't really call it a loophole, it's explicitly excluded in the law. Given that copyright only applies to original works of a sufficient level of authorship, I think there's a valid perspective that typefaces are excluded.
  - eru 3y ago
    Yes, not sure whether loophole is the right word. But it's a complication and exception. > Given that copyright only applies to original works of a sufficient level of authorship, I think there's a valid perspective that typefaces are excluded. Typefaces are typically a lot more sophisticated than when I'm taking a selfie or jot down some nonsense words and declare it a poem. Yet, the latter two are protected by copyright law.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Well yeah, sophistication isn't part of the criteria for copyright protection. I think the perspective applied here is along the lines that typefaces are more of a tool that authors use, rather than an product of authorship. Likewise, the design of a paintbrush wouldn't be eligible for copyright. Even a very sophisticated paintbrush. Both typefaces and paintbrushes are eligible for patents, though.
      - eru 3y ago
        Speculating a bit: I think the historical perspective had a much narrower focus on what could be put under copyright. That's why (in the US at least) photographs and movies (and computer code?) wasn't originally included, and only got included over time via judicial decisions. Typefaces just naturally fell outside of the original narrow focus, and just never got moved into the focus.
userbinator 3y ago
As computer programs are protected as literary works in the United States, a font file program can only be eligible for copyright protection in the US if the source code of the computer instructions within the file was written by a human; due to the prominence of modern user-friendly digital font editor programs, this method of creating a font file is now quite rare. Very interesting. IANAL but presumably this means that anyone can trace a font automatically, generating a new one that looks exactly the same, but isn't subject to copyright.
- StableAlkyne 3y ago
  You can, but you'll still end up paying legal fees to defend yourself if Adobe or Monotype comes after you if their rent team sees a public design from a company not on their list. Maybe it won't matter if you're a hobbyist, but they both go after businesses over alleged unlicensed use.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I would presume Adobe and Monotype file design patents for the design and trademarks for the name of each font.

samsolomon 3y ago

That's pretty cool! A couple years ago I designed a similar 3x5 typeface for Salesloft's icon set. It was designed with a similar style—outer/inner radius, square terminals—as the icons. Personally, the centered descender on the Q is more clear with tiny typefaces. https://solomon.io/salesloft-icon-fundamentals/#alphanum https://solomon.io/salesloft-icon-fundamentals/#alphanum

acdw 3y ago

> Please do not post this article to Hacker News. oop!

uxp8u61q 3y ago

Site is dead.

worthless-trash 3y ago

Heads up thats http:// http:// the https:// https:// is not workinng for me.