Sounds good. I just have one question after the first read:

>Commercial Use .non-mass production
>Commercial Use .standard

How are mass production or standard commercial use defined?

"Under Commercial Use, “standard” includes any use aside from software
embedding, !ETF-only specimens and consumer letter products." Specific real-life examples would be the Exclamachine-labeled !Sketchy Times stickers and another clothing project, based on !The Black Bloc, in negotiations now.

"Non-mass production" includes hand-made works of craft or art, intended for resale. This is most similar to the "Angel License" popular in the growing scrapbooking market. Here's one example, the first typical one I googled: http://www.digitalscrapbookpages.com/digitals/index.php?main_page=produc...

Thanks!

Here is a draft of the text of the Designer License:
Comments welcome, it is a little long for my tastes.
http://www.exclamachine.com/licenses/designer.pdf

Choz. (My "Not A Lawyer" 2¢):

Instead of saying "non mass production" I might say something like "non commercial" and then perhaps define what you deem as "commercial". I find "non mass production" a little vague as well as leaving yourself open for other lawyers definitions.

The Hobby License does allow commercial use, in a sense. I want to keep it in common terms as much as possible, but the first post is copied and pasted from my semi-coded notes in excel. The actual full length text will replace this with specific examples, much like the design license linked above describes. When exclamachine.com goes back online, I will have a license comparison table, but I will probably describe the Commercial Use there as "Limited" with a footnote or similar.

Hobby license now up, and the Designer license revised:

http://www.exclamachine.com/licenses/hobby.pdf

(In the PDF, the bold looks like a faux bold.)

(Yes, it is. :) That's a draft, ejected out of the PDF "printer" from Word. I actually started to put it into a real DTP program and thought, "Wait, this is going to be XHTML soon enough". Then we can all look at it in our limping collections of browser fonts.)

Added the "Business", "Enterprise" and "Cobranding" licenses (draft versions)...

http://www.exclamachine.com/licenses/business.pdf

http://www.exclamachine.com/licenses/enterprise.pdf

http://www.exclamachine.com/licenses/cobranding.pdf

At this point, I feel that the first two are alright, but the last reads like a bit of a tangled mess.

I am not looking for legal guidance here, so much as an impression that the names of each more or less jive with a font purchaser's expectations.

In my upcoming faces, embedding is set to print/preview/edit, allow subsetting. Does this jive with the consumer expectations? There was a thread on this, but search has failed me.

And to match, here is a draft of the new free license. Not as free as the old one, but I hope the caliber of the upcoming work makes up for that.

http://www.exclamachine.com/licenses/free.pdf

In all, that's 6 different major licenses, intended to meet the needs of students, amateurs, designers, artists and businesses of various scales.

Missing from the Enterprise and Cobranding licenses are the changes to the warranty. Will do that next week.