I believe Lino's EULA still applies if purchased from Adobe as Adobe is simply a reseller of Linotype fonts, just like FontShop. But I am not certain of this. Perhaps there is some sublicensing agreement that allows Adobe to apply their EULA.

Helvetica Alternates, just in time. Consider URW's Heldustry or E+F's Folio. E+F is particularly flexible with this sort of thing.

Thanks Stephen! That's great.

I talked to Adobe sales today who said it was their own EULA that applied. I just sent a Typophile-IM to Thomas. Maybe he can confirm or deny for sure.

Stephen:
This has been discussed numerous times. The EULA offered by the vendor to the buyer is the EULA that the buyer agrees to: if you enter into an agreement with Adobe, it's Adobe's terms you've agreed to, not Linotype's.

That's a major reason to buy from Adobe: they often have better terms than the original foundry. Take MVB Celestia™ Antiqua: license it from Adobe, and you can embed it for print and preview (see this list); get it from MVB themselves, and "if you have purchased a Basic License, you may distribute a PDF containing the subset-embedded Font Software to not more than five (5) computers at your one geographical location." See more here.

Major players like Adobe and Microsoft manage to negotiate more favourable terms for their clients: that's why you can find editable embedding versions of fonts in Microsoft products that, if purchased from another vendor might not allow _any_ embedding. That's how Simon Daniels explained it to me.

See this very recent thread on Adobe's forums.

And, unless the EULA has a clause saying that the agreement is subject to future unilateral alterations (and, sadly, such EULAs _do_ exist!), the agreement you made when the money changed hands is the agreement you have.

It pays to shop EULAs!

Now can you modify Adobe's Helvetica? Well, that's one for the lawyers! Maybe it is easier to go with one of your alternates.

I have read the Adobe EULA and it does explicitly let you customize for in house use - just not redistibution; and in language whose directness and unambiguity Tiffany herself would be proud of I think.

>it does explicitly let you customize for in house use

Eben, can you send a pointer. My reading of the EULA is that the only modification allowed is format conversion.

Taking another look.

EULA is here... http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/legal/pdfs/EULA5seat_USEnglish02.03.04...

4.2 No Modifications. Except as permitted in Section 14.7, you may not modify, adapt or translate the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted under applicable law to decompile only in order to achieve interoperability with the Software.

. . .

14.7. Font Software. If the Software includes font software --

14.7.1 You may use the font software with the Software on Computers as described in Section 2 and output the font software to any output device(s) connected to such Computer(s).

14.7.2 If the Permitted Number of Computers is five or fewer, you may download the font software to the memory (hard disk or RAM) of one output device connected to at least one of such Computers for the purpose of having the font software remain resident in such output device, and of one additional such output device for every multiple of five represented by the Permitted Number of Computers.

14.7.3 You may take a copy of the font(s) you have used for a particular file to a commercial printer or other service bureau, and such service bureau may use the font(s) to process your file, provided such service bureau has a valid license to use that particular font software.

14.7.4 You may convert and install the font software into another format for use in other environments, subject to the following conditions: A computer on which the converted font software is used or installed will be considered as one of your Permitted Number of Computers. Use of the font software you have converted will be pursuant to all the terms and conditions of this agreement. Such converted font software may be used only for your own customary internal business or personal use and may not be distributed or transferred for any purpose, except in accordance with Section 4.4 of this agreement.

14.7.5 You may embed copies of the font software into your electronic documents for the purpose of printing and viewing the document. If the font software you are embedding is identified as "licensed for editable embedding" on Adobe’s website at http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/legal/embeddingeula.html, you may also embed copies of that font software for the additional purpose of editing your electronic documents. No other embedding rights are implied or permitted under this license.

I hate to rain on the modification parade, but to me I can't imagine how anyone could read this and think modification is allowed? Tom what am I missing? :-(

why must this constantly be rehashed?

http://typophile.com/node/16180

True I should have pointed to that old thread. I'll shut up on the subject.

I think all the questions are answered now. :)

In the other thread, the key point is this, Question #11 from the Adobe Font FAQ

11. Can I customize a font using font manipulation software?
You are allowed to use font manipulation software to modify the font software to produce “derivatives” of fonts licensed from Adobe, as long as you use the derivatives in accordance with the same licensing terms that accompany the original fonts. For example, you can use Macromedia Fontographer or Pyrus FontLab to customize an Adobe Font for individual usage, but you are not permitted to distribute, sell, or give away, the derivative work, and the derivative work counts as one of the permitted number of uses.

Let me know if anything is still unclear.

T

I think it would be very helpful if the Adobe font EULA were to allow modifications too. However, it seems that you're saying that the FAQ is really a supplemental EULA that provides additional rights as well as clarifying existing EULA rights. That's fine but why put these in different places?

I wonder if perhaps there's some intentional ambiguity there - the lawyers may insist on the EULA language to absolve Adobe of any blame for stupid things people might do when modding their fonts, but the management may feel they aren't particularly fussed as long as the mods aren't distributed, particularly since the company doesn't have the time to do custom mods of their fonts themselves.

If this interpretation is true, then the Adobe staff can't be expected to remove the ambiguity entirely, can they? ;)

Oddly, the Adobe font licensing FAQ was written by the same lawyers who wrote the EULA. Go figure.

T

Thomas:
I think the important thing for us individual users is that we can go ahead with modifications secure in the knowledge that Adobe would have a heck of a time taking us to court, given the FAQ! That's good enough for me.

> unless the EULA has a clause saying that the agreement is subject
> to future unilateral alterations (and, sadly, such EULAs _do_ exist!)

1) Where?
2) It sounds illegal.

> I wonder if perhaps there’s some intentional ambiguity there

Bingo.

> That’s good enough for me.

That's up to the lawyers to decide, as they see fit.
We don't get to feel secure; we get to be peons.

hhp

Oddly, the Adobe font licensing FAQ was written by the same lawyers who wrote the EULA. Go figure.

I figure without ambiguity, there would be no lawsuits. Without lawsuits, there would be less work for lawyers. That scan?

Yes and no: you don't need ambiguity to launch a frivolous lawsuit that can be
won based solely on your lawyer-army being larger. Drown them in fear and
paperwork, and you'll have your way.

One interesting question:
Can a misleading FAQ be construed as entrapment?

hhp

Not in the legal sense.

But a misleading FAQ can be construed as a representation leading to estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel)

Estoppel? Sounds like Spanglish for brake pedal.

hhp