It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Technique and Theory
Type Design Critiques
Type Design Software
Lettering and Calligraphy
Technique and Theory
History of Typography
Suggestions and Bug Reports
Integrated instead of embedded
I guess this ship has sailed, but wouldn't have “integrated” been a more accurate and descriptive term than “embedded” when it comes to font licenses?
That's a very appealing idea but I doubt it. I bet they'd be equally confusing for the same reasons. But maybe I'm just in a dark mood.
Ray, to what kind of license(s) are you referring?
edited January 24
I mean the way licensed are sold as embedded app licenses or referring to web embedding. Is the font is hiding in the software like a sleeper agent, or is it part of the software? What if the font data is converted to bitmaps, but the spacing and kerning information is used. Is the font embedded? Sort of. Is it integrated? Definitely. I guess they're synonymous, so perhaps it's a matter of taste, but I feel like integrated is a term that requires less explanation.
In French, it's not an issue. “Fonts embedded in software” and “fonts integrated with software” both translate to “polices intégrées au logiciel.”
Maybe they're not really synonymous. According to Roget's, they're not.
I think fonts being “combined” with software is more accurately descriptive than them being “inserted” in the software.
I’ve always had a problem with “web embedding.” Not to say it’s objectively wrong — only that it’s never worked for me. I think the term came from a web developer point of view, which makes sense, but for the licensing side it’s really misleading. I like “web publishing” better (as in, “You’re licensing this to use with content published on websites”), but “serving” or “hosting” aren’t so bad. Nothing seems perfect.
I’ve never minded “app embedding,” although at my former job the lawyers didn’t like it because they associated the word very closely with PDF embedding. Their preferred term was “bundling,” but I never thought that would make sense to licensees. (It makes sense as “The font ships with the app so that end users can use the font with it,” but to me it implies the font is outside the app.)
“Integrated” makes sense, but I’ve never used it. When I’m writing licensing descriptions, I usually like to mention that fonts are compiled into an app binary, to make it more clear to the reader how it’s different from PDF, ebook, or web.
If you can’t tell, I’m mostly trying to find the terms that cause the least confusion with license buyers. Sometimes the best words aren’t the most accurate, technically.
I always wanted to clarify the term “embed” since its use is widespread but at the same time, yes ... not very clear. I added other words around it to help, as in this snippet from our Desktop license:
“This agreement expressly prohibits the following; you may not: 2a. Embed, link, or otherwise include the fonts in hardware or software.” Include was my word of choice.
Forum Software Powered by Vanilla