New Darden Studio eula

it took a lot longer than we planned (last atypi I said "a few months") but we're finally live with the new eula.

The documents were actually written last December but we waited to post them till we could make some changes to the site.  We're also publicly displaying three addenda documents and the corresponding pricing  (though purchases of addenda still need to go through our office.)

Link :


  • What does "rasterized vector" mean? A plain reading would indicate that a print pdf could not contain the vector font information. 
  • Thanks for posting this.

    How does "If you want to send your client a file that permits the client to edit, alter, enhance or modify the Font Software, your client will need to purchase its own license to use the Font Software" jibe with "You are prohibited from decompiling or disassembling the Font Software for the purpose of converting, porting, adapting or modifying it in any manner"? I worry that a client will be made to buy its own license with the intent of modifying the font, only to then realize it's not allowed.
  • @Hrant H. Papazian. I'm not going to engage on your bugaboo.  You're just inventing a question so you can polish your sword stump.  Modifying isn't allowed and that's clear.  Clients have plenty of other reasons to license a font 
  • Why does everyone here automatically hate Hrant?

    Actually, I think this should be
    "If you want to send your client a file that permits the client to edit, alter, enhance or modify the file using the Font Software, ..." 
  • @Adam Jagosz I don't hate Hrant.  We're friends.  That said, I do tend to shut off my brain when he talks about this topic. 

    I stand corrected.  I think Hrant has caught a drafting error.  I will make sure to do something about it quickly.
  • I didn't mean 'hate' hate. Just that people tend to... shut off at him because of how he is :)
  • then you answered your own question.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 981
    edited August 2017
    @Adam Jagosz Joyce is too strong to hate a dissenter. However –and as her own correction arguably exposes– she can apparently be too hasty in dismissing a thought based on a previous related disagreement. But it's merely related, because:

    @JoyceKetterer I'm not expecting to change your mind about the untenability of the no-mod clause, and I honestly don't want to use your post to drive my agenda; it's that I feel that wording in 1.c does really give false hope to those not rigorously paying attention. But I guess you meant to say a file made with the font, not the font itself.
  • I read this imagining myself wanting to use a typeface to incorporate into a logo. In the top left paragraph I'm told that I can use the typeface to create a logo. In section 1c, I learn that it needs to be converted to outlines. Section 1d tells me that the typeface can't actually be used for a logo since it may not be used on clothing. A logo will certainly make its way to a t-shirt at some point and it will likely be the main item on the garment.

    Also, section 1D refers to the font software being used on clothing which seems wrong. You don't use font software on least not for another decade.
  • JoyceKettererJoyceKetterer Posts: 134
    edited August 2017
    @Ray Larabie I think we need to clarify that logo use is not "integral" as outlined in section 1d.  We thought that by saying that logo use is permitted it's clear that governs over any other clause but you're the second person to not understand that recently.  As far as needing to convert the logo to outlines I've never known a customer to mind.  People tend to want to render logos as images, in my experience.  And, the governing principle of our EULA is that embedding requires additional licensing.
  • Ray LarabieRay Larabie Posts: 681
    edited August 2017
    The outline part is fine. Back to 1d...

    Say I'm an agency and I'm using this typeface for a brand. From reading this, I'd feel like I'm restricted from creating a slogan t-shirt. It would be as if Mazda weren't allowed to make a Zoom Zoom or Summer Sale shirt. That's how it reads to me. And it's fine if that type of use is restricted but there seems to be no addendum to deal with it. It seems to be telling me it can't be done.
  • Since the Web addendum explicitly mentions @font-face, be aware that you can also serve webfonts via the FontFace API - maybe just word it as Font Face technology or something more implementation independent.
    Also section A3 talks about CORS - if you are serious about licensees implementing this help needs to be provided; I dare say even your average web dev will scratch their heads at first, let alone designers or clients.
Sign In or Register to comment.