One of best comments after my font licensing talk at Typecon was a comment that we as an industry should stop referring to what we do as selling 'fonts' and instead refer to it as selling 'font licenses' made by @Nadine.

I have noticed more recently after some online research that many organizations (Creative Market, Typekit) have replaced the traditional EULA with basically a large FAQ whereby the actual EULA language is buried elsewhere within the terms of site use or sometimes just not visible at all leaving the FAQ as the controlling agreement.

It occurred to me that one of the ways we can start to evolved the mindset of licensing vs purchasing fonts is by changing the name of the document itself from End User License Agreement to Font Use License Agreement which could evolved into something between a EULA and an FAQ provided its clear and would be enforceable in a court of law.

This would represent a change to the public and may make them sit up and take notice of an evolution in the way we approach licensing as both sellers and to buyers.

I'm curious what you all think of this approach.


  • Options
    I've not read Butterick's license before. Very clever use of "my fonts" – emphasizes the IP ownership exceptionally well, particularly with use of repetition.
Sign In or Register to comment.