How about The End User's Manifesto?

I think "EULA Manifesto" is too unspecific. Who is manifesting? Users, designers, or producers? I'm assuming that you are speaking from an end user's point of view. If I'm wrong, then maybe the "Licensing Manifesto"? Or the "Pay-Us-What-Is-Due-To-Us Manifesto"? (for foundries/designers, respectively).
__
www.typeoff.de

Assumption correct, Dan. I'm speaking for the End User. But, Isn't it End User License Agreement? I would think that End User is implied. Fair enough. But that still leaves the other questions.

I think that End Users have very specific demands (or at least wishes) for the way EULAs be written. If they were to have a manifesto, that would express these, right? So it is their manifesto, and not a EULA manifesto.

But this is really your manifesto, isn't it? I shouldn't try to twist you into anything ;-)

__
www.typeoff.de

:^o Busted! Yes, it is my manifesto. But, I am hoping other end user's will share their opinions and realities.

> How about The End User’s Manifesto?

That sounds just right. What we should be paying attention to.

hhp

Of course, most foundries are protecting themselves with their EULA, which is as it should be. The foundry is making explicit their demands of the end user.

In my opinion, it doesn't hurt for the foundry to reflect the reality on the ground. (Many foundries will disagree with me.) The EULA for Village was written to protect the foundry, the end user, and the designer of the typeface. The language is simple and clear, and not legalistic, and above all it acknowledges that this kind of agreement is "faith-based". As a small foundry, we can't afford to prosecute those who infringe the agreement; we therefore ask that customers agree to comply with the terms of the agreement to the best of their ability, and in good faith.

The full text of the EULA follows. I'd love to hear feedback and comments. Especially from you, Tiffany. Does this EULA do anything for you as an end user?

/ / / / /

Village End User License Agreement / version 1.2, July 2005

This is an agreement between you, the purchaser, and Village Type & Design LLC (Village). In accepting the terms of this agreement, you acknowledge understanding and promise to comply with its terms. If you do not accept the terms, please do not complete the purchase transaction.

What you are purchasing from Village is the license to use digital typeface software - hereafter "fonts" - on a certain number of computers within your organization; you are not purchasing the copyright to the design of the fonts, but the rights to use the fonts.

If you are purchasing 1 license, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 4 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 2 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 10 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 3 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 25 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 4 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 50 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 5 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 100 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 10 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 500 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 20 licenses, you may use the fonts on an unlimited number of computers within your organization. You can purchase additional licenses at any time, which grant you the rights to use the fonts on additional computers, as noted above.

You can make archival copies of the fonts for your own purposes. You will not distribute the fonts to people outside of your organization. A copy of the fonts may be sent as part of a file release to a prepress bureau, if absolutely necessary. The fonts can be embedded in other software files, such as Portable Document Format (PDF) or Flash files, but you will take all reasonable care to embed the fonts in such a way that they cannot be extracted from the files you create.

You may modify the fonts for your own purposes, but the copyright remains with Village, and the number of computers covered by the license remains the same. You may not commission a third party to modify the fonts without first gaining permission from Village. You may not sell or give away modified versions of the fonts.

We have done everything we can to produce our fonts to the highest and most up-to-date technical standards, and we test the fonts extensively in the latest versions of technically-compliant applications. If you do experience any difficulties with our fonts, we will do everything that we can to work with you to resolve any issues. If, after we have worked to resolve any technical issues, you are still not satisfied with our product, we will be pleased to refund your money, which shall be the limit of our liability in this transaction.

We grant the rights of use of our fonts to you in good faith, and request that you promise to adhere to the terms of this agreement to the best of your ability, and in good faith.

Chester, what an incredibly reasonable EULA.

I don't want people to think that I'm slowly trying to convince foundries to change at their core(s). If there could be some sort of standardization, I would be for that. However, some things which Chester/Village have has allowed would probably never happen on other foundries EULA.

I blush.

Tiffany, I'm sure that there are foundries out there who would find the Village EULA to be too reasonable and permissive. As a recovering graphic designer I am well aware of the way things work out in the world, and I felt that our EULA should reflect that experience.

Retail type design is a gamble: type designers work on types for months or years, getting them just right aesthetically and technically, in the hope that they will make money from sales for years to come. We invest in time and hope for return on investment in the form of money. (This is very similar to artists and writers, except we small guys never get advances.) The end user most likely doesn't know this. Readers of Typophile probably do, but they're in the minority.

Many graphic designers use their fonts illegally, either because they have not licensed them at all, they are using them more widely than their licenses allow, or they are embedding or doing other things the licenses don't allow. The huge majority of these people didn't read the EULA, just as they didn't read the EULA for their page layout software, or the privacy statement on the back of their credit card bill. People are immune to legal documents; they click the "Agree" button automatically, never intending to follow the agreement: they don't even know what they're agreeing to.

My hope is that by simplifying our EULA people will actually read it. And that by making it easier to actually comply with its terms, people will uphold their end of the agreement.

At Thirstype, I once devised a really complex sliding pricing table for multiple-user licensing. It was a logirithmic nautilus affair, and was hard for purchasers to swallow. We would often get calls from people wanting to license a font for, say, 8 computers, but once they learned the price they changed their minds and would only license the font for one computer. If our licensing was more reasonable, customers would have been more willing to ante up for the correct licensing for their needs. And hopefully they would respect us for understanding their situation.

This is what I was thinking in drawing up the Village EULA and licensing table. I wanted them to reflect the way that designers actually use type. Type publishers just don't have the time to go around enforcing the correct licensing of their types, so we have to place our trust and faith in our customers. We have to believe that they will try their hardest to follow the terms of the agreement, that they will purchase the right number of licenses for the number of computers on which they plan to install the fonts, and that they will try not to let the fonts loose.

As for an End User Manifesto... I think it's a good idea. There are too many EULAs out there which are egregious in some or all of their stipulations. Should one cross one's fingers while clicking "Agree", or should one cancel one's order/installation, etc.?

Chester:
Your EULA is what I, as a user, want.

I _do_ read EULAs. I won't buy fonts that forbid embedding in PDFs - it's not worth it to me to buy a font if I can't send a client a PDF proof, and besides, I don't want to keep track of which ones are forbidden, so I just won't buy them.

And modifications:

Just yesterday I was going to buy Monticello from Linotype, until I noticed that the EULA doesn't allow modifications. Now, the Linotype EULA offered at MyFonts does allow modification, but Monticello isn't offered there. It's a pain.

It's a pain, especially now, as we hover halfway between OpenType and Type 1. If I buy Monticello (type one only), I can't combine the smallcaps with the roman into OT for convenience in InDesign. The fractions are a separate font. How...quaint.

Meanwhile, I have FontFont's Absara Sans OT. I'd like to can get at the smallcaps to use on a form in FileMaker, but that isn't possible in FileMaker without rearranging the font.

Now, I have a nice guide put out by FontShop Canada some time ago: "FontShop's Guide to Legal Typeface Use". It states the "most font manufactures will allow you the right to produce a modified version." It then goes on to give an example: producing swash caps for Baby Teeth, they suggest, would be all right as long as everyone involved is within the EULA for the original.

So, I can just go ahead and rearrange the position of the small caps in Absara, right? NO! The FontFont's EULA requires me to obtain _written permission_ first. I have asked, and Danny Dawson is looking into it for me, but my inquiry was made a couple of weeks ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if I have to wait a few more weeks to get an answer.

Surely this isn't good for me, or profitable for FontShop.

Will I buy from FontFont again? Probably, especially if they solve my problem. Will I consider the added hassle when deciding between a FontShop face and, say, one from Village or ShinnType? For sure.

I know that all designers are free to set whatever conditions they want on their work, and it's up to me to make my decision based on these conditions.

If more people read the EULAs, and took them to heart, the marketplace might function properly. EULAs that allowed me to actually USE the fonts would boost sales, and other designers would follow suit.

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that many buyers blithely ignore the EULA and make their purchases without reference to them, and make use of the fonts outside of the EULA. There's no reasonable possibility that LinoType is ever going to know if someone slipped a couple of the nut fractions into the roman cut of Monticello, and most designers wouldn't even know (or care) that they had broken the EULA if they did so.

I, on the other hand, end up feeling like a sucker for abiding by it.

"I won’t buy fonts that forbid embedding in PDFs - it’s not worth it to me to buy a font if I can’t send a client a PDF proof, and besides, I don’t want to keep track of which ones are forbidden, so I just won’t buy them."

That is the crux of it for me as well. I password protect the PDFs before I send them to anybody.

ChrisL

I, on the other hand, end up feeling like a sucker for abiding by it

That's a pretty common feeling for people who abide by the rules when so many around them don't; however, it's generally better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

swash caps for Baby Teeth

OMG!
I want it.

It seems I'm not the only one that feels somewhat penalized. In development, I can prepare many PDFs. Taking each one and re-opening in Acrobat to add password protection takes real time. I feel like I spend increasingly more time trying to keep my end of the deal. I also don't stray much from very commonly available type with my lower end clients because of the hassle.

This makes me think of what people say about a police state, that you craft enough laws that everyone is in violation of a few at any given time.

I think this thread and others are a testament to the fact that all the efforts to protect the type sellers and designers are creating a drag on the industry. I find it odd that as the promise of technology has paid off, the time saved having functioning hardware and software can be spent fussing with EULAs and patching up PDFs to prevent font theft. I don't even know how to pull a font out of a PDF. Now I feel I should figure out how it is done so I can best try to prevent it. The burden is on the honest, which doesn't seem fair. But then again, what's fair?

Which EULA's require password protection of PDF's? I can't recall seeing this before. Not mentioned at all in the bible... http://fontlab.wikidev.net/Image:Interrobang2-EULA-chart.gif

Cheers, Si

OH NO! That isn't the bible, Si, I've been told by numerous foundries that there are now errors and mistakes because they have changed or Nathan and I misunderstood the EULA.

I would also be curious to know who requires this assanine requirement.

Explain embedding. Maybe I'm off on a tangent.

Font embedding is an Acrobat option that lets you include the fonts used in the document within the PDF. Foundries have EULA restictions around the embedding their fonts, as well as the distribution of the PDF that include their fonts. However, I've not seen a font EULA require that a PDF be password protected - although they might exist. But if you're not obligated to pass-word protect why are you doing it?

Cheers, Si

I was under the impression password protection was the only way to limit the editing of a PDF. I may have wrongly assumed this was associated with preventing extraction of the font data.

Following your link Si, I notice the Adobe restrictions listed "additional license available for documents that are editable", and "technical restrictions such as print & preview only".

I've used the password function to prevent editing of the doc. etc. for various reasons, but one of those reasons is usually associated with the EULA and trying to protect the font from theft. I've had PDFs sent to print without my knowledge without full res. images.

Anyway, I'll look at Acrobat with more depth and get up to speed before I rant anymore.

Embedding is a problem word as it can be in reference to PDF and/or formats similar to SWF. I do think these are two different kinds of embedding, but I wonder if foundries see embedding as a value add when used in SWF and so reason they should be able to get more money. (That could also be a question.)
--
I appreciate, as a user, that Chester, you and Village, have approached this with new thought and reason. You are right most of the time people, even I, click agree without thinking. Bad habits die hard. There are basic uses which designers hope they can do with there fonts. Your EULA, Chester, seems to make sense in that maybe designers will meet you half-way and will read your EULA.
--
What are those basic things we, designers, need to be able to do with our fonts when we license them?
- Print: I have several printers in my office. But, according to some EULAs I have to choose a printer. This seems antiquated.
- Embed for proofing and service bureau output.
- Archive
- Modify: At my own risk. This one isn't so important to me, but John does make a good case for it. My situation is such that I wouldn't trust myself to modify the font. I'd rather have the foundry do that for me so if something is wrong I can talk to them.
- Transferability: This is important to me. (Read below)
- More than 1 user, at least 2: I have no idea how to rationalize this beyond my own personal experience as someone in a small office.
--
What about resale? If I were to create a book, for online sale, as a PDF. Is it reasonable that foundries charge extra for this? Should their be a resale EULA? Or is this yet another case of trying to get us to pay more? I think it is fair. But, what do you think?
--
I'd be interested to actually see someone crack a PDF and find out how useful the font is once cracked. It seems to me that those who can crack open a PDF to get a font aren't designers but bored geeks out to prove something.
--
It seems to me that Chester, you, are trying to infuse trust into your EULA. I appreciate that. This is not to say that I don't find trust in other EULAs.
--
There are two people in my office that might be considered "designers". I use quotes because he is more or less in charge of production. However, when I license type from a foundry, such a The Font Bureau, I have to make sure that the other "designer" doesn't copy the fonts off of my machine as I only license them for my machine. I also pay for the licenses myself with the understand, from all of the foundries from whom I license, that I will take the fonts with me when I leave. Am I creating a nightmare for them? Probably. But, I've taken the time to create relationships with these foundries based on trust and common understanding. It needs to be said that I have searched his hard drive and have deleted fonts that I know he shouldn't have. I feel a little guilty, but I doubt he even notices. I'm the police in my office. I take the steps necessary to respect my associates and friends.
--
Another tangent. If more people actually took time to create relationships with the foundries, and vice versa, I think more people would find themselves wanting to abide by the rules.
--
Should I be speaking to the technical forum at ATypI? Or, am I already talking to the converted? This is, in a nutshell, what I am trying to figure out.

> I was under the impression password protection was the only way to limit the editing of a PDF. I may have wrongly assumed this was associated with preventing extraction of the font data.

For TTF and OTF's the 'print and preview' restriction is encoded in the font itself, and Acrobat will respect that setting. For Type 1 fonts, perhaps jumping through those hoops might be the only option to stay within the EULA - that's a bit annoying. In my world I don’t have to deal with Type 1, so things are somewhat less complicated.

>Should I be speaking to the technical forum at ATypI? Or, am I already talking to the converted? This is, in a nutshell, what I am trying to figure out.

Yes! There will be people there who will benefit from this, especially in the context of the other talks lined up for Thursday morning.

Cheers, Si

Did you guys know that the Emigre EULA fobids you to send your service bureau a file containing converted-to-outlines of their fonts? That's gotta be a really good example of either monumental hubris, or engrained idiocy. Or both. This is definitely even worse than any no-mod clause. And I wonder what it says about making a logo from their letterforms... It should just come out and say: "If you think about not giving us more money, you thereby owe us twice that amount."

hhp

To be fair, their EULA says nothing about outlines specificially, as I would use the phrase "turn the type to outlines". Could others read it and maybe help clarify. It could be that I am misunderstanding their use.

http://www.emigre.com/EUL.php

Number 6 says you can't make EPS files.

hhp

Type designers can set the embedding bit in TTFs to one of four options. These options affect how you can use and share a font from a license standpoint. The option in Acrobat to embed fonts is more of a toggle button, and the embedding rights in the font need to agree with it:

1. Downloadable: Anyone can squeeze the fonts out of a PDF and install them on their machine for unlimited use in other docs

2. Editable: The whole (not subsetted) font is embedded in the PDF, enabling co-authors to edit the file but not download it

3. View and Print: Subsetted fonts are embeddable in PDFs for distribution, but no editing is possible

4. Restricted: Font can't be embedded, so fonts revert to system or substitution fonts when PDF is shared.

Obviously the first is horrible for a type designer, and the last is horrible for the document user and author.

The term 'embedding' for fonts needs a qualifier to discuss meaningfully.

Adobe allows downloadable embedding in all its new font products. Adobe's main business is Acrobat. See?

> Adobe allows downloadable embedding

I think you mean editable. The point you make is interesting and reminds me of something Bruno said at TypeCon about foundries basing their output device restrictions on Adobe's font EULA. Seems odd that any foundry would today follow the lead of a software vendor (especially one selling font-related apps, tools and technology) when setting embedding bits and writing licenses.

Cheers, Si

Hrant, to your point on article 6, the sentence that follows this restriction has more to do with article 9 where Emigre states they won't be held responsible for somebody using their fonts or derivative works for fitness for a particular purpose . . .

Imagine an ad agency uses an Emigre font or creates EPS outlines from an Emigre font and runs an ad campagin for a major client like MegaFlicks in a national campaign and it reads in the paper as MegaF*cks and the agency gets fired and blames it on the font rather poor art direction and decides to sue Emigre. Legally, Emigre would still be on the hook for this unless articles 6 and 9 were in their EULA.

It's a totally unlikely scenario, but the language is clear that there is no guarantee that font software licensed to an end user is guaranteed to work for any specific purpose. I believe this is one of those misunderstood passages that comes off as 'license everything from us or else' . . .

On the flip side of the coin, lets say one of the many Digital Scrapbookers (the fastest growing new trend) decides it's OK to make a digital alphabet from an Emigre font and resells it for $6 for a set of .EPS letters. This becomes a derivative work which is being resold and redistributed as software and for all intents and purposes violates the EULA to say the least . . .

I'm not sure Emigre's EULA is that dogmatic, but it does in very general terms create enough of a statement to the end user that should they need to bring suit to get them to stop selling these digital alphabets, they have a strong case to do so with . . .

Think of a EULA like a 3 year-old child . . . If you don't specifically say 'NO' or 'DON'T DO THAT', the child assumes the answer to every question is 'YES' or 'YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION' - And make no mistake, most end users are very generous in their assumptions about what is allowed and what is not.

At least twice a week I am pleased to get questions from folks wondering if their use falls under our standard EULA and I make sure to answer them thoroughly . . .

Also, I'm not inclined to debate Emigre's EULA point by point, but I prefer to explain to the best of my understanding as to what each passage means to both the foundry and the end user. Often times from what I read about EULAs on boards, it does come off as an us vs. them kind of deal when in reality it's more like defining the terms of a relationship between two parties kind of like a pre-nupt.

As a foundry owner I feel responsible for defining this, else its my own fault if I don't provide any information on what the purchase price entitles you to. And, for any fonts that do NOT have EULAs, many of them end up on CDs for sale at eBay for $15 and the creator is often none the wiser that somebody else may be profiting off of their work, EVEN if the creator intended that nobody should pay for it and distributed it as freeware to the masses.

So I guess what I'm saying in not so many words is that the buyer and the seller need a EULA. How clear or restrictive it is, is solely the responsibility of the foundry and as the creator of the products they are selling they have the ultimate last word in how they wish their products be used.

Here is an interesting snippet from the House Industries Vector Image EULA that demonstrates how specific a foundry can define their use:

'If images featuring a person will be used in connection with unflattering or controversial subject matter, or used to imply connection to or endorsement of a product, the image must be accompanied by a statement that states the person is a model used for illustrative pruposes only.'

My 2¢

Stuart :D

Stuart, you've thought a lot more about this than I have - thank you for elaborating on how complex this can be. But the bottom line is that a designer* is forbidden from carrying out a routine, legitimate and indispensable activity. A foundry's liability is one thing, imposing hyper-restrictive blanket requirements is another; as I've expressed before, I think all unreasonable demands do is encourage bad behavior - they don't actually stop much. Also, it seems to me that EULAs often leverage over-simplification to create an intimidating aura of ambiguity that seems to serve only the foundry - but ends up leaving a bad impressions with the user. The fact that section 9 is in all-caps is a clue as to what's really going on.

* Who even bothers reading the thing.

> Think of a EULA like a 3 year-old child

To me it seems a lot more like a nasty, slick, middle-aged lawyer.
Who writes this stuff, anyway? Come on.

> most end users are very generous in their assumptions
> about what is allowed and what is not.

End users who bother taking a EULA seriously should be treated with respect - not like this. And end users who don't, you have to learn to ignore.

hhp

I agree you've got some good points here Hrant. The question is, how can one craft a EULA that reads at an end user 'understandable' level yet has enough weight to hold up in a court of law if need be.

Something else to consider is that all EULAs were written long before the indie internet foundry boom of the mid 90s becuase at that time most foundries selling fonts were selling them to art directors whereas todays audience is quite honestly anybody with a computer so the language of EULAs has not evolved to meet this new audience.

For myself, when I started my foundry in 1996, I did a cut/paste job and subbed my foundry name for the one that was there. Certainly years later when I GOT the purpose of a EULA, I did get saavy about understanding what I wanted mine to say. I think this holds true for many foundries from that time period as well as plenty of the current MyFonts foundries who don't totally GET EULAs but think they should have one to seem 'official'

In part, I don't think many font creators totally get the concept of a EULA and I think most of the spanning of the gap occurs from the foundry side, not the end user side and I certainly agree with Hrant on this. And to this point, as I mentioned earlier, the end user is becoming a more sophisticated buyer than ever before so EULAs are being read by end users.

Tiffany made a point earlier about embedding and this one is tricky. The idea of somebody selling an ebook with an embedded font, does this warrant additional licensing fees? What about a computer gaming company using a font prominently in their product? What about embroidery machines that will sew your name on a shirt using a specific font? What about a network running promos for a TV show using a specific font?

In all of these cases, the end user is enhancing or creating a product using the font as part of the product. As the creator of the font being used, I do honestly feel that using the font in these manners does warrant the need to extend licensing since part of what is being sold or promoting the sale is the font.

Stuart :D

How is an eBook different than a print book? Why wouldn't the same rules apply?

ChrisL

Two thoughts I have on this are:

1) Because technically it's still a form of software distribution which is forbidden in most EULAs. Different than sending PDFs with embedded fonts to a service bureau or client, when an eBook author sells a book, they are selling the font(s) as well. Both sides could be argued to death, but it's clearly an issue that requires discussion . . .

As far as eBooks go, it's is no different than a game developer embedding a font in a video game or a kiosk developer embedding a font in a stand along kiosk or digital slot machine. If they are intending to sell something or make money with something the software is part of, I personally feel it's still a form of software distribution that requires additional licensing.

2) I think the difference between a printed book is that the font is no longer accessable and the product is truly 'finished' - In cases of eBooks, the font software outlines are still 'live' because they are required to render text to output devices like monitors and printers via computers. So, for all intents and purposes, the font is still very much a part of what is being sold.

Stuart :D

I have a few thoughts too...

1. having digital fonts (bitmap fonts or outline fonts) embedded in eBooks, video games, help systems, etc., clearly adds value to these products. The fonts reduce file size (no need to pre-render flat bitmaps for each page of content), they aid modification (easier to fix typos without regenerating bitmaps), make localization easier (update a linked text file ratehr than a bitmap), are easily searchable (no need to jump through the additional hoops Octavo do/did in their eBooks by having searchable text 'behind' the bitmap pages) etc., etc.,

2. Embedding permissions in fonts relate to "document" embedding. Clearly a video game is not a document, but for a commercially sold eBook some font vendors make the case that eBooks are “products” and not documents in the embedding sense.

So on the one hand because eBooks were not really covered by older EULAs (which talk about document embedding) font vendors could take advantage of this and put restrictions around the eBook embedding without visibly taking away existing rights from customers.

On the other hand clearly embedding fonts in eBooks adds considerable value and functionality to these products so it's not unreasonable for customers to pay more for these rights.

Fears of extraction of fonts from eBooks is really a red-herring - the restrictions are based on the value the fonts add to the products.

Cheers, Si

Hmmmm... I see Suart's point about "live versus static", but I would say that this kind of extra payment scheme is akin to one's bank taking extra money for every transaction. It's beyond the pale.

I mean, imagine paying FontLab extra money every time you generate a font; this is the final task of the software, and we expect this functionality. And we should. Which is why we ship out OTF or TTF or PST1 files to our licensees, not VFBs. (Not everyone has a copy of FontLab lying around to roll their own fonts.)

The more restrictions we place on the potential licensees of our types, the less interested they are going to be in abiding by those restrictions.

Time for another analogy: You're in the market for a new car. The EULA for the car stipulates that you cannot drive above 45 miles per hour, but you want to drive your car on the highway. So you have to decide: do you buy the car knowing that you can't exceed 45 mph, or go look elsewhere for a car without such a restriction?

I know I've posted this elsewhere, but David Foster Wallace wrote a very interesting piece for Harper's magazine about dictionaries taking either a descriptive or prescriptive approach. If you have a couple of spare hours, you can read it here:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html

We publishers each have to decide if we're going to focus on describing - our approach at Village - or prescribing the allowable use of licensed types.

Si:
I think that fonts, as individual designs, add more value to a printed piece than an electronic one, so I don't really buy your arguments.

The fonts on the cover of a book, the look of a printed page, help convince the browser in the bookstore to pick up the book and buy it. (Or, at least, they engage me.) _That's_ added value for the book producer.

I doubt that many PDFs are sold because of the format. The person buying a PDF is more likely focused on the content, rather than the look. If it all shows up as Adobe Sans, (or Verdana or Georgia) on their system, they'll still get the content, and probably won't be disappointed. The "functional" nature of the font, its search-abilty, its compact format, aren't tied to its individual design qualities.

So, one might say the fonts, qua individual designs, have _less_ value, not more in an electronic doc. One certainly might have a hard time convincing someone holding the purse strings to spend extra for the "restricted" fonts, over easily available unrestricted ones.

Again, market forces should discourage restrictive EULAs, but I suspect that much of the market is already treating fonts as unrestricted regardless of the EULAs.

John, to be honest I don't think people are buying eBooks yet, so the issue isn't exactly relevant right now. Font vendors added these eBook clauses to their EULAs when eBooks were being hyped as the next big thing - that hasn't happened yet - maybe it never will.

If and when eBooks do take off designers may stick with system core fonts but it's likely they'll want the same flexibility they have in print. Even if many customers will be happy with Arial and Comic Sans.

Cheers, Si

For what it's worth, I've heard back from Danny Dawson at FontShop USA about modifications to FF fonts, and the short answer is, no, you can't do any.

I have found my dealings with Danny to be very satisfactory, and I believe he is trying his best to help me and explain the Fontshop terms to me. It's a thorny area, and I get prickly when I enter it. He's spent a lot of time replying to my pesky queries. Fontshop has a good and patient worker there.

Specifically, you may recall that I wanted to be able to rearrange the font to allow me to use the smallcaps in Filemaker. Danny says that modifications have to be done by the designer, or by Fontshop staff, and that I am "effectively prohibited from making the changes yourself." He says there may be some situations where FontShop might allow user mods, but he doesn't know of any.

I've asked him how much such a modification would cost, but he hasn't replied to me yet. Practically, I'm sure it would be much cheaper to just buy the Type 1 smallcap font, but I was curious.

I've also asked him what it would cost to have the ff ligatures from Seria Sans added to the regular font, something I would have done myself in about 5 minutes. I also wondered why FontShop persists in putting ff ligs in a separate font when, for example, Storm includes them in the regular font (even the Type 1), and names them properly so that InDesign finds and uses them.

I haven't asked, but wonder how much time and money it would cost me to have kerns for smallcaps to numerals added to a Fontshop font. Canadian postal codes alternate letters and numerals, like this "M5W 7V6". It doesn't take an obsessive compulsive to find fonts that end up with ugly spaces with these babies! Do all the FontShop fonts cover these pairs? I don't know, but I doubt it. Since I'm not allowed to modify the fonts, I'm going to be stuck reviewing addresses individually if I do mailing labels with a Fontshop font. Hmmm, maybe I'll use an Adobe font, or Panoptica! Life's too short.

So, I'm disappointed in FontShop. I think their EULA is a tease. It states "If you want to make modifications to the Font Software, you must obtain the prior written consent of FSI." Am I the only one who thinks this implies that one _might_ obtain that consent? Shouldn't it state "you are effectively prohibited from making the changes yourself", since that is, in fact, the policy?

> Life’s too short.

Exactly. Do it.

hhp

... The person buying a PDF is more likely focused on the content, rather than the look. ...

You are right, but it is generally the designer who wants to guarantee the look of the book/brochure/whatever across media which means embedding the font. Should I be saying subsetting instead of embedding? If designers are fine with Adobe Sans and Adobe Serif then there isn't a problem. However, isn't it a messy PDF when you allow for re-flow? Won't you have to create a version of the book/whatever allowing for re-flow? The table of contents will suddenly not count for much.

--

John, can you e-mail me the EULA which you are using as reference?

--

I wouldn't call it a tease, well, ok, maybe, but after reading so many EULAs, and not calling myself a lawyer or legal-eagle or expert, it seems to me it is in the best interest of foundries and users to have some text left vague. Perhaps more for the foundries, but it leaves it open to the user to create dialogue and develop a relationship. You could disregard the help which Mr. Dawson has offered. You could read into it and find a rationalization. It seems to me he hasn't given you a final NO, so maybe you could wait a little longer?

Economics say you've probably spent more time (which equals money) on researching this option than it would take to license the type and write a script for replacement? I'm probably over-simplifying.

The things you've stated need to be addressed, not just by FontShop, but all foundries. I'm not trying to create argument.

Perhaps the reason they haven't compiled all of the ligs/figs into the same font is they are slowly upgrading everything to opentype. Maybe. Only a guess. I have some fonts that drive me crazy in similar ways. I do own a license to FontLab, but I'll be the first to admit my total lack of knowledge. IF I were to open a typeface and start monkeying around I'm sure I'd make a bigger mess than a simple find-and-replace would solve.

Am I to understand that the EULA for FSI Canada is different that FSI?

Tiffany:
Of course I've spent more time (=money) on this than if I had done a search and replace. My point is that I shouldn't have to jump through such hoops.

The fact that you don't feel comfortable with FontLab is unfortunate. I'm no expert, but the kind of modifications I'm talking about aren't difficult, and aren't dangerous.

Believe me, it takes far less time to add ff ligs to a font for use in InDesign than it does doing S&R every time you use the font, and then remembering to redo the S&R if you change fonts. If I switch my headings from Seria to Seria Sans, I'm going to have to go over to the Sans "expert" (ha!) set to get the ligs again.

Am I the only one who's printed a piece with a word like "office" showing up as "oVce" because I missed a expert set switch after changing fonts? Thanks, but no thanks.

I don't mind terribly that they haven't compiled the ligs into the fonts. I _do_ mind that they won't let me do it for my own work. I'd be happy if they said modifications "voided the warranty". (Oh, that's right, there is no warranty, is there?)

The FontShop EULA I'm referring to is the one offered if you go through the checkout process at FontShop USA. You, or anyone else, can view it there if you wish. I can email it to you if you'd like.

I don't know the current status of FSI Canada. I don't get the impression that the current Canadian terms are different from the USA ones. I was referring to a pamphlet sent to me several years ago by FSI Canada entitled "FontShop's Guide to Legal Typeface Use". I had, naively, relied on it in the past.

I can't find EULAs for any FS Canada font purchases. I have FF Clifford on floppies from them, but the disks don't seem to have EULAs on them. I have some original compressed packages sent to me by FontShop on my hard drive, but, unfortunately, they will no longer open on my Mac, even in Classic. The floppies may have come wrapped in a printed EULA, but it's no longer to be found. I suppose I thought the pamphlet told me what I needed to know. Ah, youth!

FWIW, Tiffany:
I'm not sure, because I never use them, but I think that the Adobe substitution fonts maintain line breaks.

Dan, I think I will use your idea. After thinking about it, and obviously having misunderstood you the first time, I do like the idea that this is "The End Users Manifesto".

--

Of course I’ve spent more time (=money) on this than if I had done a search and replace. My point is that I shouldn’t have to jump through such hoops.

Sorry. I was stating the painfully obvious.

Thanks for e-mailing your EULA. Yes, I'll agree, it is mis-leading of them to tell you to obtain written consent when in fact, so far, it seems you won't be granted consent. I think you might agree that if they had simply said, "modifications are not allowed," you wouldn't have bothered with them or their type. Or, at least you wouldn't have wasted time hoping and writing. The fact that you are in correspondence should show them you do care. Perhaps it will end on you side of the user fence.

FS Canada no longers exists. Using that guidebook, as helpful as it might have been can only cause problems for you now. When foundries change their license I believe all past users who licensed are now held to the new license.

"When foundries change their license I believe all past users who licensed are now held to the new license."

Well, no I don't think so. If that were true, _I_ could change the terms of the agreement! That would be a unilateral re-negotiation of the "contract". I can't possibly be held to a new license—I didn't agree to it. I can only be held to the license I agreed to at the time of the transaction.

That's why, for example, the Berthold fonts I obtained in the distant past I can still use, although I have no intention of getting any new ones. And that's why I wouldn't be too worried about making an OpenType version of faces I licensed from FS Canada.

If you licensed an FF font from FS Canada, I assume that your license was not with FS Canada, but with FSI (just like if you bought a ShinnTypes font from FSI, the EULA is from the foundry being distributed by the distributor, not the distributor itself).

FSI does still exist, and you would still be bound by your agreement with them if that is the way the EULA really worked (which I'm pretty sure it would… can any FontShoppers help me out here?).

Dan, I'm the one disagreeing, not John. I have always understood that as EULAs are updated those are the EULAs which we are held by. No? I mean say I license a typeface in 1999, but the foundry updates their license. I have questions and call them. I am now bound by the new/updated EULA, right?

I'd like more feedback on that question too.

Tiffany, I was responding to this line of John's last post:

And that’s why I wouldn’t be too worried about making an OpenType version of faces I licensed from FS Canada.

I would be worried about that, from a fair use perspective.

As to your question, T, I really don't know what the answer would be! I suspect that a foundry could include in its EULA a clause like, "we reserve the right to modify our license at any time; this will not validate our agreement, etc." But I am not a lawyer. I don't know what any foundry's position is on this. I bet that Thomas, Si, or John Hudson would have better answers, though.

Dan:
In what way would fair use be violated if I acted within the agreement I made with FS when they took my money and mailed me a font? I would say that altering software to ensure fitness of purpose would be "fairer" than an after-the-fact prohibition on alteration.

Really, please explain the fair use objection. When I made the agreement with FontShop, they were distributing literature (unsolicited—just because I was on their mailing list) telling me it was okay to alter fonts for personal use. I purchased a licence, sending the money to FS Canada. Um, would it not be "fair" for me to assume I was allowed to do what they said I could do?

If software vendors wish their agreements to have the force of contracts, they can't possibly expect be able to re-negotiate them without, well, negotiating. It doesn't take an Oliver Wendell Holmes to know that a binding agreement is binding on BOTH parties.

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that any contract that suggested "we reserve the right to modify our license" would, if it ever came to court, be difficult to defend. It would be tantamount to stating that the contract, as written, did NOT "constitute the whole of the agreement" (ever notice how often you see that in software agreements?). It would leave the whole thing up for grabs.

You can't have an agreement if one party says: "I agree now, but I might not agree later". That's not an agreement, that's a discussion.

John, do you have a credit-card? :-/

hhp

Sorry, I don't follow. You mean the floating rates? Yeah, okay.

But, really, Dan's hypothetical EULA with a future modification clause is just that. I don't think any font vendor has ever stooped THAT low. I might be impatient with them, but I'm not about to lump them in with loan sharks and credit card companies!

John, is the license from FS Canada, or FSI (FontShop International)? I believe that the FontFont library is owned by FSI. If that is so then FS Canada was merely the intermediary—your agreement was with FSI. If you had bought a font from a non FontShop-related foundry through FS Canada (Adobe, Monotype, Shinn, etc), your licenses wouldn't be voided just because FS Canada closed.

Like I said, I really don't know what your situation was exactly. But even if the literature (flyers, etc) said that fonts were modifiable, those were the license. And it is the license that counts, isn't it?

Have you asked anyone at FontShop in SF if they/FSI offer modification licenses? Some foundries will change your license to allow for modification for a specific fee. This would then be "written permission." Other foundries don't do this, they probably don't want anyone to change their font data ever.

Credit cards can do pretty much anything they want.

> I don’t think any font vendor has ever stooped THAT low.

Maybe, maybe not. But since few people read EULAs (that's why they're so long and cryptic, duh) they're more motivated to.

hhp

Oh, Dan, I've been in discussion for over a month with Fontshop in SF. See my previous posts above.

And the issue of my 'legacy" EULA isn't who it was with, it's what it allowed; and further, (as I've argued), what _it_ allowed, not what current FSI EULAs allow.

I'm not suggesting that my licence is void, quite the contrary. I'm suggesting that it can't be annulled unilaterally. (I don't think FSI is planning to give me back my money.)

At least that's how I see it, unless you can further elucidate for me how it wouldn't be "fair" for me to exercise the rights an EULA gave me.

[Moderator comment: I have to say I appreciate the civil way this thread has been handled by all involved. It's a potentially touchy subject, so it's all the more appreciated.]

I will be curious to see what Letterhead comes up with, and hope that they have much success with it.

I am reminded of the time a few years ago when HTF's fonts - this was before Tobias joined Jonathan - came with an installer which silently placed an invisible Extension into the user's OS 9 System Folder. The fonts would not work without the Extension in place. So if one released a design job using a HTF font, and only the font files were sent to one's bureau, the HTF fonts wouldn't show up. (I forget whether they swapped out to Courier or what happened.)

HTF ended up "recalling" all of the protected fonts and replacing them with non-protected fonts. I assume that they had numerous requests from their confused clients, so had to withdraw their protection scheme. Many of us in the industry were interested by HTF's technology, and were considering similar software or hardware "dongles".

None of which is on-topic. Apologies. c

>It looks like some of their fonts were pirated and they won’t have none of it.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but this type of thing seems to account for the apparently bizarre or arbitrary restrictions in some EULAs - a designer or foundry gets burned in some way and then asks their lawyer to add a clause in their EULA in an attempt not to let the same thing happen again.

I was thinking the same thing, Simon.

Please go to this thread if you want to continue the piracy discussion: http://typophile.com/node/14891

I just want to say that as a non-type-designing art director, I really appreciate Village's approach. Thanks, Chester.

It seems to me that all of these EULA variations and concerns can be worked out so long as something is allowed to "give". If the end user wants a very unresrictive EULA that allows all the rights they dream of, then they should be willing to pay for that right. No?

Do expansive EULA rights come at a cost? And if so what would that be? I have a feeling it won't be $19.95.

Perhaps this whole problem began when the price of font licensing began to spiral downwards.

I agree with you James, as much as I am a graphic designer, I do agree with you. 19.95 doesn't buy much these days.

I've realized that all the points in a EULA, any given EULA, with which I have problems ... issues ... suggestions ... are points at which any give foundry can make additional money from any given person willing to license. As well, I've realized that what a graphic designer considers part of every day business happens to also be those same points. Modifications, embedding, service bureau/printer, laptop/location. New lines need to be drawn. Fonts aren't the most expensive part of being a designer, well not unless you are me ;^), but they are a necessary part of our business.

Tiff,
Are you showing a multi-personality dissorder with a second screen name? Or do you only use Tiffalicious when you are a "bored housewife" ?
:-)

ChrisL

nah just lazy designer.

i don't contend that the following points are potential value-adds for foundries. i argue that some of them shouldn't be though.

chris. what do you think of those points?
- modification -- should we be allowed this, or is it really a value added item and we should pay for the right?
- location -- what is location now? with laptops and so much freelance is this a problem? if I license the type and put it on my laptop should i be allowed to use it where, when and how I want?
- embedding -- PDFs are a way of sharing information now. i use them as proofs and comps to clients. i also send PDFs to press instead of the files and fonts. embedding in SWF could be argued as a given as well. I do agree that anything with the font embedded which is for resale should be a value-add.
- service bureau use -- while i think it INCREDIBLY generous of foundries who do allow for this ... well, I wonder if foundries wouldn't just allow for PDF embedding and then theywouldn't have to do this. If they allow for PDF print/preview as a general rule of thumb but then make an allowance for editable PDF for service bureau press only.

This is me mentally puking all of my thoughts as I have them. as you were.

forgot about this one:

the use of the word cpu vs. workstation vs. user vs. device and how should printers be included. personally, this is one that really sticks in my craw. is that right? most agencies/studios now have more than one printer. i posit that inter-office output devices shouldn't be limited. users and/or workstations/cpus ... okay, this i can understand ... but output devices?? c'mon!

Modification should be allowed in some cases but there must be a clear definition of what is allowable. Anything involving redistribution after mods is not permitted. Mods to make an off-the-shelf face a corporate face should not be permitted without specific written permission and payment. Mods to make language variants is fuzzy to me. If you are adding say Greek or Cyrillic, this is clearly value added and requires payment. If you are adding a few alternate characters for local dialects, this seem fair to me. If you are doing CE where none existed before, I think you need get written permission.
All of your other points (location, embedding, service bureau) involve current work procedures which were not likely when the original EULAs were written. To me embedding fonts in PDFs (with password protection) is not only common practice but a must. It makes more sense to embed a font than send a copy of the font to a service bureau. Editing on site is the big issue. Today designers may be in city A, client in city B, and Printer in city C. In this “I need it yesterday” world, mistakes happen. “Whoops! the figure for net profit for 2005 is wrong on our annual report. Can we change it at the printer’s site?” So what to do? I think printers and service bureaus who do not already own a font should be charged a small “Temporary use fee” by foundries when making mods on site. Sounds fair? but! What a pain to collect and oversee!
Regarding location/CPU/Device—We need to come up with a better term. Perhaps we are talking “Workgroup” or “Project-group”? Meaning the small group in the design office in the project chain (Art Director, Designer, Production artist) including their laptops and all of their proofing devices. I don’t mean an entire ad agency or large corporate design staff, I mean the 1 to 5 people who really work on that project. Most design offices are small anyway and larger ones outsource often to avoid adding full time staff. The sad truth is that a font costs only 20 bucks, a few hundred for a big family. The font designer gets the smallest piece and has the least say . . .—Whoops, soap-boxing again, sorry.

ChrisL

I think workstation is the clearest term. Workgroup and the others are too ambiguous.
"This font software is licensed for use on up to five workstations in one geographic location"
I think that is fairly clear. As to laptop use, I think it should be spelled out in the EULA simply to provide clarity when it comes to agency and large installation use. For most small (1-5)installations, a laptop is just one more workstation, and as long as the laptop isn't permanently kept in another studio in another location I would thik it should fit the terms of the EULA.

Thanks for your thoughts, Chris. I'll work through those later and throw a few more questions out there.

--

Studio A is made up of 5 laptops. Studio A licenses a 5-workstation typeface family. The license does stipulate location. Can the 5-workstations work at home?

I argue that defining a license by location is out-of-date.

James, where do you stand on this? What do others think?

I agree that workgroup is confusing and not definitive enough.

Fine, license by location is out of date. 1-5 workstations as a basic licensing level is out of date as well. The whole point of license by location is to control the number of workstations allowed for the licensing level.

1 font user, one price, no discount for multiples, no stipulation on location.

$35.00 single user license, 5 users = 5 x 35.00 = $175.00 installed anywhere you like.

Discounts for multiple workstations only when controlling the location of the installation.

I think we are on to something here!

A human-user based license is clearly the most
sensical, and the one I myself have always used.

But scalar discounting still makes sense.

hhp

As a user I appreciate discounting for multiple licenses. But, if we can eliminate the need for a physical location then I'd give that up.

Basic license to allow two installations anywhere, that way a user can install on primary workstation and on laptop, or the user can give one to the service bureau, or to their cousin in the next town so that when they visit there will be the font ready for them to use. A twenty person design staff can buy either 20 copies so they can all have on on their laptop or home system, or they can buy 10 copies and divide it up in the one location.

Does that give you the flexibility you want?

Per user, rather than per-cpu, also prevents the loop-hole of server based fonts that hundreds of concurrent users can interact with via the Web or Intranet. This is the case with the Monotype Imaging EULA which defines users as people who can interact with a font regardless of the location of them or the font.

Si

I think "work at home," work in a hotel, work on clients site, should all be allowed. The concept of location is fuzzy. Perhaps it is individual user at any temporary location plus fixed location. I design a job at the office, take it home at night to make a deadline, fly to the client's site and make a presentation from my laptop via projection which I prepared at the Hotel. I printed it on 3 printers. This normal work practice.

ChrisL

Sorry. I'm a little late to the party.

I agree generally with Chester's sentiments.

I don't have a problem with modification. I will happily modify my fonts for users, but I do charge for that. If a user thinks they can do it themselves, I don't mind. If someone thinks they can improve the kerning, good for them. If they think the K should have a swash, fine. The only thing I require is that they have a legitimate original license for the modified font and that they don't give copies of the modified font to anyone who also doesn't have a legitimate license to the original. I also do not offer free technical support for a modified font.

Something that keeps coming up in this discussion is the so-called "value added" problem: To my mind, anyone who uses my fonts uses them because it adds value to whatever it is they use it for. If someone uses it in a highly prominent way, say for a logo or national campaign, how exactly am I losing out? Because they used an off-the-shelf font instead of hiring me to make a custom font for them? If I see a font of mine used in a prominent way, I am extremely happy, even though it's quite possible that only the minimum 5-user license was purchased. To me, it's free advertising. If anything, for such cases, I would request that the name of the font be mentioned somewhere, as in a colophon.

My biggest concern is that users not distribute my fonts as fonts beyond the limits stated in the EULA (i.e., the number of users). I don't mind embedding of any kind as long as the fonts cannot be practically extracted and installed as fonts separate from the document (or software) in which they were embedded. Incidentally, fonts may technically be extracted from PDFs, but such fonts are diminished versions of the original fonts (no kerning tables, OT features, etc.), so I don't worry much about that.

When I say font, I also don't mean just in the particular format it's in. If someone started selling and distributing rub-down type in one of my fonts, I would have a problem with that, though I'm not sure exactly what I could do about it given that typeface designs have such limited legal protection (in the US at least).

I really don't understand the attitude of some type designers who seem to want to put up all sorts of restrictions about how their fonts may or may not be used. To me, the more you can do with a font, the more valuable it is and the more potential customers I have. A font is not a work of art that needs to be protected to preserve the vision of the artist. It's a tool to be used by others to create things. A font has more in common with a tube of paint than it does a painting.

I noticed that my EULA was mentioned in passing by James H. I agree that it could be better and less ambiguous. Occasionally, I have been asked for a clarification from a customer. In fact, I don't think much of what I outlined above could be deduced from it. I wrote it (or, more precisely, reworded someone else's) years ago when selling fonts was only a tiny part of my livelihood. This discussion has given me a lot of food for thought about how I will rewrite it.

Thanks, Mark. Thanks, everyone! This is great to hear both sides. Which is as it should be discussion in the best sense of the word!

"I noticed that my EULA was mentioned in passing by James H. I agree that it could be better and less ambiguous."

Just to make things clear, that was not a complaint. Mark's EULA seemed a bit less prescriptive in that it didn't bring up a few of the issues that lead to so many unanswered questions. One thing this discussion has brought to light is that certain terminology can be interpreted in many ways by reasonable people.

Thanks Mark for a EULA that allows room to work, and thanks for your comments. It is good to hear your ideas, and I appreciate the distinction that a font taken from a PDF is less valuable for the reasons you describe.

James, I wasn't quite sure what you meant when you said my EULA was "interesting." :-) In any case, I do think it leaves a little too much to the imagination so I do intend to rework it.

I wrote it (or, more precisely, reworded someone else’s) years ago

there should be a EULA dispenser, maybe hosted by typophile, where you can check which options you want included in your EULA, press a button, and, voila!, it spits one out for you.

Oh, excellent idea.

How about a copy of MacEULApro: or "iEULA"? or EULAcs the suite?
Nolo Software does this with will writing but that would be the death of us :-)

ChrisL

For more religious typefaces, designers could use "Ha Lay EULA" :-)

ChrisL

I guess I've written my EULAgy now.

ChrisL

(In cyberspace, no one can hear you groan.)

*quiet snicker in the corner*

Groans and snickers are fine--My daughter would have belted me with a newspaper by now. Good thing she is away :-)

ChrisL

Learn something new everyday: http://store.adobe.com/type/browser/legal/embeddingeula.html

Looks like Adobe is willing to open up their own fonts but might be prevented from allowing editing on other foundries' work.

"...Several fonts in the Adobe Type Library, including all Adobe Originals typefaces, other Adobe-owned typefaces and certain third-party font foundry typefaces, allow for editable embedding."

ChrisL

People should check out OurType's EULA: it allows editable embedding. This is quite unusual.

Of course, the best EULA in the world isn't much use if the fonts aren't good. Not that there was ever any doubt, but I've got to tell you, I've just started using Arnhem, and, boy, it's a champ!

Ms Tiffany,

How did your AtypI discussion go on EULAs?
Did you gain any new insights in Helsinki?

ChrisL

I'm happy to report that several foundries are seriously considering what I had to say. That is not to say that anything will happen, but it is nice to know they understood what I was suggesting. The room was full and there were people standing in the back. Needless to say, when I looked up to start speaking I almost fainted. No, really! At that very moment I realized I was about to tell the industry how to run their business models. Talk about sudden added pressure.

You go Girl!

ChrisL

Here's an interesting one...

LettError fonts and artwork are licensed for use on 6 rasterizing devices connected to the same network. A device may be, but is not limited to, a printer, rasterizer, video display terminal, CPU, workstation or any device where the font software is rasterized or display of the LettError Font is generated from font software outlines.

...so I have one computer and one printer.

The computer is a workstation = 1 device
The computer has one CPU = 1 device
The computer includes Windows, which comes with TrueType and PS raterizers = 2 devices
The computer has Adobe Acrobat Reader which has a rasterizer (cooltype) = 1 device
The computer has Avalon beta installed (two rasterizers) = 2 device
The computer has Adobe InDesign installed (one rasterizaer) = 1 device
I have two screens attached = 2 devices
The printer is a laserprinter = 1 device
The printer has a rasterizer = 1 device

So under this license one computer and one printer = 12 devices?

Si

Yikes! This is exactly why that wording is antiquated.

Tiff, you rocked at TypeTech. Your words and tone were just the thing to put some spice in the morning's events. I'm glad that you've focused on this topic; the mythical End User had been forgotten in all the legal a**-covering.

> spice in the morning’s events

But Tiffany was on after lunch ;-) maybe the jet lag...

But it's true Tiffany's talk was great and the tone and presentation style was perfect for the subject matter and audience.

PS. Carl's talk was a good one too - in fact most of the talks were good including mine ;-)

Tiff,
Can you give us a blow-by-blow description of what various parties said to you afterwards? Feel free to leave out names if need be.

ChrisL

Just a few comments. Nothing that made me worry. I don't recall any dirty looks. I did hear from a few other people that they heard people saying the wanted to review their EULA. I did make the point that the EULA is now a selling point and they should take me seriously. Well, not in those words, but you get me.

All of the talks I managed to get to in the TechForum were very good. I look forward to being involved, in some way, next year.

Great work Tiff! We all owe you a debt of gratitude for taking this on and seeing it through.

ChrisL

Currently our EULA does not allow for modification. So what do you think of a EULA allowing modifications provided those modified fonts are sent to the original font producer and any modifications become property of the original font producer. Sort of like a closed loop open-source!

James:
I would love to see that. I hate to think of people struggling with Type 1 expert sets when some other user has already made an Opentype version with the expert built in. Everyone would benefit.

Just like with regular OSS there's a risk of the IP becoming polluted with someone else’s IP - perhaps someone will paste in some characters from another font. You'd probably need to have people fill out and sign an IP declaration form stating that modifications were all their own work.

However just getting the modified fonts back, without ever merging the mods into the shipping fonts would still be useful. It would show the designer what direction licensees are taking the fonts, and the designer could choose to follow that direction if he/she thought it would be of interest to the broader customer base.

I agree Sii. I thing the getting the fonts back is the interesting aspect of this proposal. I doubt the outside modifications would ever get incorporated, but it would be an interesting record of what was going on. One of the reasons we create opentype fonts in very large families is to anticipate most modifications the average user would do.

I think the idea is excellent as well.

Further I also think, wonder aloud maybe, if going to the opentype format will resolve many (some?) of the requests to be able to modify in the first place. As James said, it could be that those type designers that do use the OT format well -- meaning they second guess everyone's needs -- will not have any requests to begin with.

I think you are right Tiff. There will be less need for mods. There is an issue of how much value is put in by anticipating such mods so I still think some type designers will feel it isn't worth their time unless they get request for the same feature repeatedly.

ChrisL

True. But, type designers, such as James, work with the publishing industry where I would guess it is much better to spend the time while you are knee-deep in creation already to do the fiddly stuff too. No?

> modified fonts are sent to the original font producer

Sounds good.

> any modifications become property of the original font producer.

Maybe co-property.
So the two parties would have to agree to do anything with it.

hhp

Co-property wouldn't work. I wouldn't want to seek any permission from someone creating a mod on my work. I'd rather not allow it to happen in the first place than to be tied to something like that.

> I wouldn’t want to seek any permission from someone creating a mod on my work.

Why not? It just means you both have to find common ground. Is that so bad? He is after all a paying customer, and that's something to cherish. Plus it's not like the skills and talent of the guy doing the mod are worthless.

> I’d rather not allow it to happen in the first place

But that puts you back in anti-user land.

hhp

The co-property thing would be a nightmare to administer. What would James do if two or three customers sent fonts back with similar mods, say they add Vietnamese support – would this become a four-way kind of deal? What if someone made an interesting but badly executed mod, which James might at some future date implement properly – would that constitute 20:80 ownership?

The original designer should have the right to maintain control over their IP, but at their discretion they could certainly find some way to compensate a good repeat customer who provides constructive feedback, ideas and re-usable mods – I’m sure a lot of vendors do this already, through discounts and access to beta fonts.

> would that constitute 20:80 ownership?

It's not percentages, it's more like a set - I mean of people who have a say in the use of the end-result. I agree it's not very slick, but ignoring the "rights"* of people who make some contribution is unfair. I guess this all goes back to the idea of Original Contribution, where I for one think ANY font owes something to other people - and the fact that some of them are dead does not make it OK in my mind. I'm not saying fonts are public property, but I am saying we're all living on the same planet, and a font designer shouldn't belittle the value of somebody who pays money for his stuff and is interested enough to try to improve it (even if the original designers thinks it's not an improvement).

* Quotes because I don't like the usual meaning of the term, I just couldn't find a better one right now.

hhp

> I’m happy to report that several foundries are seriously
> considering what I had to say. That is not to say that
> anything will happen, but it is nice to know they understood
> what I was suggesting. [...] At that very moment I realized
> I was about to tell the industry how to run their business
> models. Talk about sudden added pressure.

Can you, or anyone who attended it, give a summary of the
ATypI EULA discussion? Was there any progress compared to
the TypeCon discussion?

A curious Karsten

It wasn't a discussion so much as several different talks about different aspects. For myself, I basically talked to the foundries from a designers point of view telling them what designers -- those of us whom are conscientious license our type -- really need in a useful EULA.