After seeing a few of the sites go down it seemed like a good idea to put it under source control. I don't claim rights to any of these works.
That’s not how copyright works.
We bootlick/grandstand over the weirdest things on this forum. Demosceners caring about another hacker publishing or using their font? Oh bother.
I suspect that might be the case here, and I personally would rather these cultural artifacts be archived in good faith than the literal letter of copyright law is adhered to, likely to the detriment of everybody.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/fonts-faq/part2/
IANAL, this is a US-based understanding and other countries have different rules, clarification welcome, other usual disclaimers, etc.
I believe this is also why all the free vector fonts (that look almost if not exactly identical to famous, $$$ ones) can exist with no legal trouble --- if someone renders to bitmap a paid font and then traces it, the resulting vector font is then considered a work of that person instead. In other words, the copyright is on the exact point positions, and not the final shape; so any series of points that reproduces that shape will do.
* Collecting these for historical and inspirational purposes feels OK, but slapping some credits on there should be top priority.
* If someone uses them without permission from the original author, they will automatically become lamers forever, suffer public shaming in scrolltexts and live thenceforth as social outcasts.
You mean like this person, who without permission from the original authors posted them on github?
I think the lack of credits here is disconcerting but on the scene, there's a constant unsolicited spreading, uploading and sharing of material - especially nowadays, for historical reasons.
I've had pics ripped and used in other people's productions without credit. It's a bit flattering but mostly it's just annoying; I would have said yes right away if asked. On the other hand, I have my pics and (recordings of) demos uploaded to various sites all the time which is OK as long as I'm credited.
I've slapped a copyright claim on one of my demos on Youtube once, but only because the guy who ripped it did such a crappy job it was completely unwatchable.
Edit: What I'm trying to say is that the scene in general has its own take on copyright and fair use. For example, check out http://scrolltexts.com/
Looking at the file names, I noticed Skidrow, Razor 1911 and TRSI, there are certainly many others. These are names you might recognize ;)
That said: programs which render text (this includes typical font formats like ttf which can have all kinds of kerning and hinting information so the fonts look good at multiple resolutions) can be copyrighted - they're not just typefaces, after all - so you're right that Adobe would take issue with just copying their font files.
> Is the particular implementation of a font eligible for copyright but the "design" isn't if I copy it and make my own font that looks the same?
That's roughly my understanding, yes, although I'm not a lawyer. It's also worth noting that trademark can incorporate typefaces/fonts - so if you're making yet another sugary beverage, you might not want to pick the same distinctive typeface as Coca-Cola for your main logo.
Disclaiming the rights is a matter of clarification for those who might consume the works in the repo. The archiver is making it explicit that they cannot publish the works under $YOUR_FAVORITE_LICENSE because the works aren't theirs to license.
Disclaiming the rights doesn't grant any license nor does it protect the archiver from infringement claims. I don't think there was any suggestion that was the case.