It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
it is a fundamentally different object
Vernon: if design professionals are taking Libre webfonts off the web and sending them to their prepress bureau for print jobs, instead of buying your commercial fonts, then it's most likely it's because your commercial fonts are just not good enough.
Vernon: Should we also worry about whether the few excellent foundries and designers in the world are effecting the sales of all other commercial fonts?
Pablo: the Libre license solves the demands of today's cloud based services
John, please take a look at the links to comparisons of signika and fjord, and explain to me how news/source different, or the same.
Paul's right. The idea that the terms of a legal usage agreement make two otherwise identical fonts 'fundamentally different objects' -- the equivalent of a technology change -- is a non-starter.I understand the point Vernon is trying to make, I think, but he's using the wrong language.
Vernon: Should we also worry about whether the few excellent foundries and designers in the world are effecting the sales of all other commercial fonts?Yes, we should, if they would give away their fonts for free.
...given the brief to create type that is able to fully engage freely with any infrastructure, interface and user, of the Internet, i don't see that a non-free font object could possibly function adequately.
We could use 'web object' if it helps, or any other term that may help communication.
The breakthrough for me in understanding why Google Fonts favours open licenses came when I sat down with David Kuettel and he explained some of the reasons why it is useful for Google services for fonts to be licensed in this way. These were particular technical benefits, relating to Google's services (e.g. the more widespread the use of a webfont, the more end user systems it will be cached on, and hence the quicker Google services using that font can be deployed to that user), and while I doubt if I grasped all of the ways in which Google indirectly derives benefits from the GF fonts, I do at least understand that there are sensible business decisions involved. That is much, much more reassuring to me than listening to you or Dave talk about Libre software and the Internet age. I suspect it would be much more reassuring to some of my colleagues too.
I would have no trouble with every font in the world being available under an open license so long as the companies and users that benefit from such licenses paid properly for that to be so.
--- Should we also worry about whether the few excellent foundries and designers in the world are effecting the sales of all other commercial fonts?--- Yes, we should, if they would give away their fonts for free.
Vernon: Oh. so it is ok to effect others by releasing more popular non-free fonts? but it's not ok to effect others by releasing free fonts ? Not sure i see the logic of that. Is your opinion based on some ideology?
This is exactly why i ended up giving permission to Adobe and Monotype to 'ignore' the reserve font names (RFN's) in the licensing of my OFL'd fonts. My standard OFL fonts, that includes an RFN, were simply 'not free enough' to function in the way that those 2 webfont services wanted to use the fonts. If those fonts had not been fully free, they could not have functioned in that service. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology at all.
If those fonts had not been fully free, they could not have functioned in that service. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology at all.
How many different Libre font families are needed to satisfy the demand of those cloud based services? 20? 30? 40? So, when such a number of Libre font families has been created, will people stop making them?
Do Libre font makers have an intention to stop when there are enough Libre fonts around?
there are sensible business decisions involved. That is much, much more reassuring to me than listening to you or Dave talk about Libre software
I'm sympathetic to the utopian social intent of the libre software movement, but when multibillion dollar corporations encourage individual creators to give their work away free I think this is cynical exploitation.
the contribution of font makers to that value should be appropriately rewarded.
I think this whole area is pretty complicated.Google is indeed not paying the "going rate" for serious, professionalquality fonts. But as a result, they mostly haven't been gettingserious, professional quality fonts. Some are better, some are worse.Does that mean they are not paying enough, or instead that there isroom for a variety of pay rates and quality levels?Are type designers like doctors where some minimum standard must berequired? I think not.Don't get me wrong. I wish Google were paying a bigger bounty perfont. I just don't think it is necessarily immoral to offer to payless than what a mega-corporation pays a skilled, name type designer,as long as you don't expect the same level of craftsmanship.
3. TCP, SSH, and C are infrastructure for web services. Source Family is not.
Fonts are tools
Please take time to read what I write carefully, and ask questions if it doesn't make sense.
Vernon, I never suggested that I thought there was a practical mechanism by which every font in the world could be open sourced and the font makers properly compensated in each instance. I said that I wouldn't have any concerns or objection to all fonts being open sourced under such conditions.
But now you are talking about specific fonts in specific services, which is what I've been talking about all along. Do you see the difference between talking about making fonts work in particular services and talking about them 'entering the Internet age'?