'Your world' is full timers though, right?“Glyphs seems to be much more popular”I suppose it depends on the folks you know. In my world it is much closer to 50/50, with many folks using elements of both.
Yes, that's what I understood by Joyce's sentence above (quoted)JoyceKetterer said:I'd recommend being very careful to keep licensing and work separate - both in terms of invoice (separating each line item) and paperwork.Abraham Lee said:Thanks, @JoyceKetterer, for your response! I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I'm wondering if you could give me a made-up (or real) example to illustrate your first sentence?Abraham Lee said:I guess what you're getting at is that there should distinctly be two main items that are agreed upon: 1) the initial work required to make the font (and how much it'll cost) and 2) what the client is or isn't allowed to do with it in the end (and how much it'll cost, if any). Am I correct?
That's also not a good idea imho, because if the OFL is one of them, it prohibits redistribution by downstream people "under any other license."Thomas Phinney said:Or, offer the font under the user's choice of several highly permissive licenses.
Rather, that's http://www.wtfpl.net But WTFPL is a terrible idea for serious work, not only because it is inherently unwelcome in important contexts (eg, anything involving kids, and some businesses) but because it is not legally sound (and therefore prohibited in large businesses.)John Hudson said:If you want to allow unrestricted use, the spirit of public domain, use the sil ofl.
Or the fantastically simple and unrestrictive MIT license: the 'do-whatever-the-fuck-you-want' license.