The judgment itself is indeed clear and direct. The trouble is the lack of underlying doctrine. There are many unsettled issues in software copyrights in US law, typefaces being one corner of the swamp. This decision makes an abrupt and ad hoc judgment without theorizing. That's appropriate, I suppose, in a summary action of a trial court, but the problem is that the contradictions and questions of law that this case so fully developed were not answered.
Contradictions surrounding human authorship remain.
We have, in my mind, no authoritative legal definition of what that freedom covers. A Type 1 charstring precisely defines a glyph shape. This decision does not tell me how the shape itself can be freely copied, while the unique Bezier specification of it cannot. After much exegesis, I am about ready to admit that the 1992 policy is so confused that one could cite whatever you like out of it to prove anything, so doing so doesn't count for much. I don't find anything in the 1992 policy to disagree with, but much of what it says is muddled.