The article is interesting from a technical point of view but feels yucky from a fairness point of view, regardless of legality. I may not have a ton of respect for the large corporation that owns the copyright on the file, but I do have respect for the creatives who make fonts (and other things) for a living.
He argues that this is a weird anomaly; and I agree. But I draw a different conclusion; the introduction of copyright on font files was seriously annoying to me at the dawn of the PC age, because fonts were among the first digital objects that were copyrightable (that I had access to). With the exception of fonts, I could copy and re-purpose anything I found. I suspect fonts may have been the battering ram that led to the present situation of copyright maximalism.
I don't mean to talk down the effort, judgement and skill that goes into creating a typeface; but I've never had much time for maximalists. I'd go back to author's lifetime, and I wouldn't allow immortal "persons" (corporations) to have copyrights.
But from a technical point of view it's still somehow interesting
It's like learning about some security tools like shodan - here is how you can mess something up, but don't do it
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/typography/font-list/bookm...