TypeDrawers in the NY Times

The user and all related content has been deleted.


  • 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.
  • I guess lack of courage and imagination is relative.
  • I'm impressed that the article mostly got licensing right, and amused that Goldman Sacks "quietly changed the EULA"
  • The PR pretense of libre type being caught with its pants down.
  • @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.  
Sign In or Register to comment.