@Adam Ladd exactly. To do it this way you have a minimum of two line items but you really can have as many as make it easy to read for the client. You could have one for each type of licensing. You can have one for the exclusivity period or for assignment of rights. The list goes on. I usually have a line item for discounts if there are any so that someone looking at the invoice years later remembers that we gave them a discount.
@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.