@James Puckett You're correct, of course, about complexity being something to avoid but you're wrong about what constitutes complexity. You're also probably wrong about what keeps people from reading EULAs.
People don't read EULAs because they have a preconceived notion of what legal documents are and that they are hard to read. Complexity doesn't keep people from reading EULAs because they largely don't get far enough to know if the document really is complex.
Complexity is amorphous clauses about "large volume" use or similar, rules with caveats or exceptions, hard to understand concepts, or disconnected ideas that require memorization.
A simple request to credit the font designer is superfluous but it doesn't add complexity. The problem with complexity is that it is a tool used by crooks and scoundrels to trick people. Everyone knows this and so even when those of us who mean well allow ourselves to be complex we sow mistrust. Trust is very important in a negotiation so it's best not to throw it away before one even starts. Since a lot of the people who read a font EULA are doing so as a first step in a license enforcement settlement the goal of a good EULA should be to make sure that person reads it and doesn't think it's complex and confusing.
We require that credit be given to us if credit is being given generally. I have no idea if that would actually be enforceable in a court. It's hard to imagine a situation where there could be any consequence for failing to give us credit other than hurt feelings.
I run an independent foundry and I can tell you that driving font sales requires a great deal of costly effort. Saying "sales is sales" is like the web developer who says "fonts are fonts" and chooses to use a system font because it saves processor speed.
The infrastructure alone for font sales (shopping cart, database, website) is costly and complicated to build and maintain. These things have to be built custom because of the nature of how we sell fonts. That alone is probably worth a 20-25% cut. Then there's the fact that users want to look for fonts in large libraries. I speak from experience when I say that it is much harder to drive sales to a small library. So, just being a part of a large library might be worth 5-10%. Then there's customer service, which can be considerable even with online sales - another 5-10%. Then the cost of advertising... it's very easy to fairly justify a 50% cut.
If you're still doubting my logic then ask yourself this: Are you willing to try to start your own foundry to publish and sell your own fonts? Maybe you've looked into it and know what that would cost. Even if you think that would ultimately be cheaper than using a reseller the opportunity cost associated with not being able to sell your fonts RIGHT NOW is an issue. If the answer is no then the conclusion is that the "fair" reseller cut is the one which results in the most sales for you.
Yes, FontSpring is a respected seller who charges only 30%. They do that by keeping licensing simple (only perpetual, lots of one size fits all pricing) with the idea that the money will be made on volume. That's a valid business model but very different from the Monotype model that dominates the rest of the industry. I can't say if one actually brings in more money because we don't work with any of them but I wouldn't be surprised if the foundry net is very similar in both models. Therefore, I'd suggest that you think not in terms of percent paid to the reseller but in terms of which business model you prefer (both in sensibility and in net to you).
You might be asking yourself why the CEO of a independent foundry that works with no resellers other than Adobe is making this full throated defense of the value of resellers. Because there really is a logic behind their existence and the amount they charge for their services. There's another set of logic for why we don't work with them but that has nothing to do with whether or not their fees are "fair"
@SiDaniels This is interesting to me. We're planning on releasing a new retail version of our Jubilat that will have three serious changes:
1. Changed vertical metrics so the descenders don't get cut off in versions of word processing software that are not exactly new but which came out more recently than Jubilat 2. additional latin language support like Vietnamese 3. wider spacing in the middle widths so it will work well in text settings and not be an exclusively display font
Since this will not be backwards compatible with the current version we had planned on releasing it as a 2 build, as in the menu will read "Jubilat2" or possibly "Jubilat 2". We plan on giving the 2 build for free to all customers who have the current build, supporting the current build for a year or two but not selling it, and then eventually phasing out the old build while trying to be as nice about it as possible.
This has been a plan for quite a while so we have talked to a few people about it before we settled on this naming but I don't think there was anyone at Microsoft on our list. What it amounted to was that there are really no good options and this seemed like the best of the bad.
It should be said that the point of the new build isn't simply to improve known issues with the current build. We are hoping to increase its sales - especially with item #3. Jubiliat has always done well for what it is (highly display serif font) and we think that it can do more if it's more broadly useful. So, the naming is important in that it will effect messaging to customers who might have passed on Jubilat before and could take a second look.