Online shops and language

2»

Comments

  •  @Katy Mawhood what do you think?
    A EULA system of discrete physical parts that are assembled together? Seems appropriate. ;) Perhaps host each version update GitHub, linked to a dynamic live feed? Talmud for the modern era. It's a decision for type designers, foundries and vendors.

    In all seriousness, I have misread EULA permissions as more restrictive or more permissive on more than one occasion. Any consistency in language or glossary terms is massively helpful. It's difficult to maintain awareness of the latest EULA updates when you're working across multiple foundries / vendors. Reading, tracking and re-reading EULAs is only a small subset of my job. 

    Once the first-proofs are received from the typesetter, the font is unlikely to change. But, the limitation on distribution in specific titles – based on changing permissions – is frustrating to track and inconsistent for users. The relabeling of fonts for a new title edition, in light of a specific EULA update or our own library permissions, is an expensive process. And breaking the visual identity of a series design – to substitute with a more permissively licensed font – or equally darting in fonts for a single character in a word – because the text design's base font doesn't cater for "LATIN SMALL LETTER H WITH DOT BELOW" – is truly heartbreaking. 

    This is the reality to respect font intellectual property in our publishing. We want to do the right thing. And I'm working on many initiatives to educate, to reach out to different departments / divisions / locations, and to build workflows that are considerate of best practice approaches. But, sometimes the budget just isn't there.

    Any consistency and any means to notify us of EULA updates really helps. 
  • yanoneyanone Posts: 109
    I’ve followed this thread a bit, but don’t understand the goal.
    Some of you are working on an overview of foundry’s licenses, okay.
    But is the goal to simply publish this overview or is the goal to create a somewhat unified set of licenses and encourage foundries to use them?
  • The goal, as I understand it, is to create some means for end-users to better anticipate, interpret and comply with licensing permissions.

    Font misuse occurs, the problem is decades old. Vendors differ in their EULAs, as a reflection of their business and values. How can we improve compliance?
  • @Katy Mawhood Agree. Something interactive and visual (icons +/- words) which people can quickly ascertain:

    1. Basic EULA OR Expanded EULA
    2. Allowed or NOT allowed features

    FWIW I think most people are more interested in the basic EULA. And I'd always suggest that once something goes into extended licensing they'd do best to get in touch with the foundry. 

    And I think it must be *easily* updatable by foundries themselves (voluntary participation) or at least voluntarily send info to be updated. 

    @yanone For me I don't feel that all foundries should/would/could use the same EULA. But I do think a single location for potential users to see and compare would be extremely helpful.
  • I also look at this exercise firstly as finding the most common ground that virtually all EULAs agree on, things like no modifications, governing law (location non-specific), indemnification, definition of ownership, etc in the hopes this can serve as a universal base for what could become the springboard to where variations begin.

    Beyond that, I think that is where we can start to define different silos of variation and categorize them accordingly.

    I also believe this can be language agnostic if the intent of each term is what is captured and measured.
  • I attended the Glyphs Python workshop the last 2 days (thanks @Rainer Erich Scheichelbauer), great training with the added spice of good food for thought.

    These types of tools gain utility through their universal application. Asking foundries to update without an incentive / no current audience is perhaps an unreasonable request, or may not have a strong uptake. But most foundries have an up-to-date EULA online. 
    • Question: With foundry permission, we can pull some data straight out of the website, e.g. web-scraping. It doesn't affect the source, it just creates a pseudo-live link to their EULA. Do you think that foundries would be willing to agree to this, under their terms? 
    If it is possible – under agreed terms – to create a single self-updating repository of EULAs, this would be a massive first step. The next step could be to agree a means of interpretation… or not.
    Tiffany Wardle de Sousa said: FWIW I think most people are more interested in the basic EULA. And I'd always suggest that once something goes into extended licensing they'd do best to get in touch with the foundry. 
    I agree completely.
    Stuart Sandler said: I also look at this exercise firstly as finding the most common ground that virtually all EULAs agree on… things like no modifications, governing law (location non-specific), indemnification, definition of ownership, etc in the hopes this can serve as a universal base for what could become the springboard to where variations begin.

    Beyond that, I think that is where we can start to define different silos of variation and categorize them accordingly.
    Who is the intended audience for the results of the exercise / universal base?
    • Font Professionals: It would be a great resource, definitely.
    • End Users: Despite good intentions, the exercise could easily mislead an end user into non-compliance. For instance, with basic licenses that only permit non-commercial use.
  • Super clear explanatory text:
    https://www.fontfont.com/licensing-eula

    Just a shame it isn't matched by the 'App+' EULA.
    https://www.fontfont.com/licensing-app
Sign In or Register to comment.