TypeDrawers in the NY Times
The user and all related content has been deleted.
7
Comments
-
As general-interest type articles go, I thought this was well-written. The distinctions between typeface and font, the definition of "x-height," and the descriptions of individual characters were all reasonably clear and accurate.4
-
9
-
I guess lack of courage and imagination is relative.0
-
I'm impressed that the article mostly got licensing right, and amused that Goldman Sacks "quietly changed the EULA"3
-
The PR pretense of libre type being caught with its pants down.0
-
@Hrant H. Papazian I suspect they wanted it to be broadly usable so they wouldn't have to think about license enforcement when people "inevitably used" their "beautiful font". Then out of reflex their lawyer wrote their own EULA (in my experience less adroit lawyers are more comfortable writing things themselves than working with someone else's language). This sequence of choices was supposed to make life easier and they just stumbled into the PR debacle that was the non disparagement clause because that sort of thing is totally normal in other contexts.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 47 Introductions
- 4K Typeface Design
- 496 Type Design Critiques
- 587 Type Design Software
- 1.1K Type Design Technique & Theory
- 674 Type Business
- 897 Font Technology
- 29 Punchcutting
- 542 Typography
- 127 Type Education
- 333 Type History
- 82 Type Resources
- 114 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 33 Lettering Critiques
- 81 Lettering Technique & Theory
- 571 Announcements
- 100 Events
- 116 Job Postings
- 171 Type Releases
- 183 Miscellaneous News
- 270 About TypeDrawers
- 54 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 114 Suggestions and Bug Reports



