It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
...and trying to make poor design standards acceptable...
For me that's enough to have a very negative opinion about [Dave].
...You and Pablo are the people trying to blur the limits of what has already been defined and agreed years ago.... You can release fonts that looks very similar to other successful typefaces without sharing a single point in their digital data. Is it possible and legal? Much probably, yes. Is it considered acceptable or ethical among our colleagues? No, it's not...
Yeah, "historical surces"... From what periods? The 80s or the 90s?
"New typographic systems" ? Like going from Postscript to WOFF? Or CFF OpenType to EOT? What is this?
This conversation is pointless.
There's a big difference between stylistic influence and outright copying, but even an act of copying can have its own merits. Some of it is a matter of tools; in early metal, before electrotyping was invented, any attempt at copying was, by its nature, an act of interpretation. Bodoni spent the early part of his career imitating the types of Fournier, but coming from Bodoni's own hand they have their own nuances. This is quite different from basing a digital type on outlines made by someone else, in which a copy-and-paste can bring along the sidebearings and even the kerning data. When Caslon made types under the influence of earlier Dutch typecutters, the line weights and justification of the matrices were entirely his own. A beautiful set of letters can be destroyed as type by bad spacing, so you might say that the white space between the letters are as much a part of type design as the letters themselves. Moreover, in the case of Caslon, the x-heights are different from his Dutch models. He made something that was new (with the exception of one of his larger types, for which he bought strikes from Holland--it's the size that Stephenson Blake sold as 42 pt).
So, given my liberal interpretations, what's my problem with Google Fonts? It violates my own sense of fairness and integrity because it opens the possibility that the work of others that was created for an exchange of payment is being misrepresented or given away. That can happen on MyFonts or other sales outlets, too, but at least there one can seek redress if property rights have been violated. And, amongst type people, there is the standard of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." With Google Fonts, the property rights have become vaporized and they have no skin in the game.
So why are you not acting according to it then?
Moderators — can you please ask people to not attack each other on such a personal level here, or close the discussion
But let me get closer to what I believe is the heart of the matter: I have reason to believe that the outlines of some glyphs and ranges of glyphs that appear on Google Fonts might not have originated with their credited authors, but rather in commercial fonts. ... the control points of the two seem to coincide quite a bit, though that may be coincidental....Is it possible that work that parts of commercial fonts are being copied, albeit with modifications, and being given away on Google Fonts?