Issue with Typeface

Ken W's picture

A friend of mine gave me set of typefaces. When I try to download it, every single typeface is called "regular", even though in finder they are all titled differently. Is there anyway I can change the name of these typefaces?

oldnick's picture

long tail distribution model

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Doctors are often obliged to act outside of paid hours when the need arises, for example responding to an accident outside of work, without compensation.

Largely irrelevant. The basic fact remains that doctors perform a service for which they expect to be paid; doctors do not work "on spec." Type designers develop products in hopes that they will be paid. For the most part, the work they do is entirely speculative. There is no hard guarantee that x amount of effort will yield y amount of income nor, for that matter, any income at all.

1985's picture

Well, exactly. It's not a very good comparison is it which is my consistent point (I didn't originate the idea of comparing it to medicine, Nick did). So stop making bizarre comparisons to guns, CDs, pharmaceuticals. Type is type. It is consumed very specifically and it's distribution is changing. To preserve the profit margins of material type based on material manufacture and distribution whilst refusing to acknowledge duplicate sales is not a very strong position and it is something that people are skeptical of, hence this discussion.

As for following up the medical thread, I just wanted to point out that not everything is about money, and not everything should be a business, simply to answer Nick.

1985's picture

You even compared something to suicide, which I did not understand at all.

1985's picture

(Edit)

phrostbyte64's picture

oldnick: “There is no hard guarantee that x amount of effort will yield y amount of income nor, for that matter, any income at all.”

Amen.

1985's picture

I agree you are right though, that the speculative aspect might cause the enterprise to fall through, but then as you said earlier, if you don't like type don't buy it, if you don't like type design, don't do it. Surely.

oldnick's picture

You even compared something to suicide, which I did not understand at all.

I said...font retailers could place reckless surcharges on the products they peddle, just as people can choose to commit suicide. In either case, the results would be the same. What's incomprehensible about that? Pricing one's products out of the market is commercial hara-kiri. And, please be so good as describe what a reasonable profit margin is, taking into account the overhead, labor involved, specialized skills, etc., necessary to produce a workmanlike commercial font.

Theunis de Jong's picture

Consider the amount of labour needed to extract a font from a PDF and put it into a reasonable format, fit for free distribution ... Those pirates are actually paragons of goodness!

Perhaps if every font had an incredibly high price tag, its buyers might say "Hey I'm not gonna share it!".

I'd like to know from Ken W., Khaled, and Andrew ("1985"): given that creating a font is a major task -- I suppose we can fairly agree it is -- but 'distributing' it is as easy as putting it on the web and into torrents, which is as good as gratis, how ought the creator be compensated for his work? Surely you are not suggesting they ought to only make free fonts, from the kindness of their hearts?

1985's picture

Right, now I follow you! In other words tantamount to suicide. Everything just seemed very dramatic with guns and drugs and then… suicide ;-)

I have spent a little while trying to compose a response to your question but I honestly don't know. I hope you can forgive me for not having the answer of a chancellor.

I will say though that the value of a tool is often determined by how useful it is, not how many hours were spent inventing it, which seems to be the common justification of price argument here in the Typophile forum. As you said people can take it or leave it. It's probably better for everyone (designers/world in general) if they do take it, and that they are encouraged to do so legitimately. Customers know that the font license they buy is potentially one of thousands, maybe more, they are right to question the value of the product, and also the license. Many products are assessed also on availability. Usefulness and availability, that is how consumers are used to assessing worth. Probably if you are businesslike you have more exacting terms. So the consumer is right to have questions, it is only natural, and they deserve to have them answered respectfully, and without condescending analogies found here and regularly replayed across Typophile. Either way seems to be a pertinent issue.

1985's picture

I'd like to know from Ken W., Khaled, and Andrew ("1985"): given that creating a font is a major task -- I suppose we can fairly agree it is -- but 'distributing' it is as easy as putting it on the web and into torrents, which is as good as gratis, how ought the creator be compensated for his work? Surely you are not suggesting they ought to only make free fonts, from the kindness of their hearts?

You and I certainly can agree on the difficulty of the task, many jobs are difficult, most are underpaid. Do you want to be compensated though or to be paid? Sounds always as though type designers are at always at a loss, which is odd given that we have established some low cost aspects of the enterprise (it's not all lose lose). The word compensate has come up several times through the thread. Compensation implies loss, are you always at the mercy of these pirates? If so, it's quite a romantic vision of your own labour. Which business does not have some loss?

Tomi from Suomi's picture

You've all forgotten to talk about music. Services and medicine (or guns and suicide) do not really compare to font licensing. Online music does.

(just to keep things lively.)

1985's picture

Thanks Tomi, music did come up in the form of CDs and online streaming I think.

Tomi from Suomi's picture

But not as stuff people feel it's ok and, if not legal, then at least a slap on the wrist, to download for free.

"It's just on the internet."

oldnick's picture

So, finally, we get back to the heart of the matter. Most EULAs begin "By using or installing this font data, you (or you on behalf of your employer) agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement," or words to that effect. My initial response to Ken W was that he and his friend violated the terms of the Gotham EULA from the get-go. Everything else is persiflage. Khaled seems resentful that he has to work for a living and, somehow or another—as he sees it—software developers of every stripe don't; this only goes to prove that he is abysmally ignorant of the amount of effort that goes into producing these "intangible" products. If a particular font meets your needs, you get what you pay for, regardless of what you pay for it...

1985's picture

Persiflage, that's one for the scrabble board! It's a good summary of my intent probably, the banter I mean.

Tomi from Suomi's picture

Very well put, mister Curtis.

Nick Shinn's picture

If you think that this is a safe comparison, then this industry clearly has no sense of itself, or it's place in the world,

I think it's a fair comparison to make to a physician, who deals professionally with the politics of intellectual property with regards to the generic drug issue.

I don't represent this industry. I don't even believe it is a single industry, the business interests of participants being so different:
1. Monotype-Linotype, Berthold, legacy publishers
2. Apple, Microsoft, Adobe: Billion dollar enterprises that bundle fonts
3. Designer-owned foundries
4. FSI: publisher and retailer
5. Bitstream: publisher and retailer

If a particular font meets your needs, you get what you pay for, regardless of what you pay for it...

Long tail indeed!

Tomi from Suomi's picture

But from an EU (that's End User) point of view it is difficult to see where these "fonts" come from. To an EU, "fonts" just are there, and you buy one when you need one. You do not think about "designer of the font". You just buy it and use it. You see that "EULA", but you've already installed the font, so some text file just sits there; not your concern. This is from my ad days.

On another note: is there any comprehensive studies of who buys fonts, quantative and qualitive? My quess is advertising agencies, publishers, design firms and graphic designers in this order.

It would be interesting to see how the old classics compare with our newcomers.

This could be information some companies rahter not give out.

Ray Larabie's picture

I'm curious as to why those font names are screwed up. It reminds me of something TransType Pro would do when converting from TTF to OTF with the default settings.

Thomas Phinney's picture

@1985:

"but usually manufacturers are held to account about how much profit they make."

"Usually"? Hardly. Only if they are a monopoly, cartel, or price-fixing oligopoly. One or more of which may be the case with text messaging on cell phones.

Besides which, companies are usually only harassed about their profits if they are actually making obscene profits in toto, not just marginal profits. Despite the cries of outrage expressed here over font pricing, prices of fonts have declined in the last 20 years*, and so have the number of people employed in said industry.

* Arguably with OpenType prices have gone back up slightly, but not at all in proportion to the increased work and value going into the fonts.

Cheers,

T

Quincunx's picture

To be honest, the prices of typefaces aren't actually that high, across the board, are they? At least, I don't think so. I could afford to buy typefaces when I was a student - and I did - and I wasn't particularly rich. Just skip the pub a few times, and you can buy yourself several typefaces. ;)

And besides... I don't think the price of a product has much to do with if it gets pirated or not.

Khaled Hosny's picture

@Thomas Phinney
Despite the cries of outrage expressed here over font pricing, prices of fonts have declined in the last 20 years*, and so have the number of people employed in said industry.

My concern is not the prices of the font, but the freedoms its EULAs take from me, the rights of ownership that I should have on what I paid for. When I buy a car I get full ownership rights on it, I can sell it (most EULAs will say you can't), I can lend it to my friends, share it with them, take it apart, when it does not work as I want I can take to whatever mechanic I want. Most proprietary software vendors, including most type foundries take away my rights, my freedoms and if I want my freedoms back they call me a pirate and a thief. Also comparing digital copying to physical theft is moot, like comparing manufacturing physical goods to selling digital copies.

Because we are humans with morals and cultures, when I friend needs my help I ought to help him, but software vendors say no, by helping your friend you are a pirate, sorry software vendors but I'll follow my morals regardless of whatever you say.

Khaled Hosny's picture

@oldnick
So, finally, we get back to the heart of the matter. Most EULAs begin "By using or installing this font data, you (or you on behalf of your employer) agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement," or words to that effect. My initial response to Ken W was that he and his friend violated the terms of the Gotham EULA from the get-go./cite>

Just because it is in the EULA doesn't make it moral or even legal, however I propose that every one who don't agree with an EULA to avoid the subjected font completely as a way to protest against it.

Khaled seems resentful that he has to work for a living and, somehow or another—as he sees it—software developers of every stripe don't; this only goes to prove that he is abysmally ignorant of the amount of effort that goes into producing these "intangible" products.

No, I made the comparison to point that in every other profession (not only medicine, but I picked that because it is mine), one have to do a work that adds a new value to get paid, but type designers seems to think that it is inherited right to keep profiting from work that they did only once years ago and still enforce illogical and immoral licensing rights on their customers, which is unique to software world.

And I know what does it take to to build type, I'm actually working on a three font projects right now, one of which involves modernisation of one of Hermann Zapf old typefaces in collaboration with him.

If a particular font meets your needs, you get what you pay for, regardless of what you pay for it...
People have morals, we are not typesetting machines.

Thomas Phinney's picture

Your rights of ownership end where copyright and contract law begin.

If you buy a book, you don't have the right to scan it and distribute PDFs of it to your friends. Or even to photocopy the entire thing and send hard copies to your friends.

Contrariwise, if you want to BUY a font, then you need to commission somebody to make one for you, or ask them how much you have to pay for a license that allows you to do those things you want.

Nobody is taking your freedoms away. You are voluntarily entering into a license contract with the software (and font) vendors. If you don't want to enter that kind of license contract, choose open source software and fonts! If you can't find open source fonts that you like for your purposes, well, perhaps that points to the fact that retail font licensing with at least somewhat restrictive license terms has in the past been a lot more effective way of getting fonts created. I think open source fonts are gaining some ground, but the dominance of retail fonts in high-end design isn't ending any time soon.

Regards,

T

Arno Enslin's picture

One more time an unbelievable boring discussion. My opinion: If you don’t have much money (and students have a tendency not to have much money) and if you don’t earn money with the work, for which you have used a font, and if you don’t brag about the work of others, you can use commercial fonts without doing anything that is immoral. The comparisons to material things are absurd. Just accept, what the internet is, because you cannot have freedom on the one and full control on the other side.

The only thing, that I have to criticize with regard to Ken, is, that he is claiming his friend has purchased the font. I doubt, that the Hoefler Type Foundry releases fonts in such a condition of the internal font names. So, either you don’t know, who your friends are, because they are lying, or you are lying or I am totally wrong and have to apologise. Well, there is another thing: Are you student (pupil) or art director, Ken?

Hehe, and not to forget: I don’t like vain young white and sporty guys with sun glasses and Macs. No, that’s a joke. Pure envy. Except from the Mac.

1985's picture

If you buy a book, you don't have the right to scan it and distribute PDFs of it to your friends. Or even to photocopy the entire thing and send hard copies to your friends.

Again, comparison to a material thing does not really work as books do not have licenses that prohibit lending them? Which is I guess what Khaled initially took umbrage with (not the initial theft but the continued theft via lending) Even if he had legitimately purchased a font, he could not lend it, anymore than the person who stole it. Shock! I know you are all up in arms, how can you lend a digital file? Well of course you are right you can't, but that does go against a very natural human tendency. People are not used to paying for something they have little ownership of, that's all. Perhaps this is the trend of some digital technology, to become more closed. Look at the history of Apple computers, I think they originally came with circuit diagrams and now you can't even change your own battery in many products. Despite this I don't think Apple's position would be take it or leave it, which seems to be the common response to any probing here, in fact this is not the position of most industries, which eventually have to court the customer. Why not here with fonts? Khaled says that he is working on some fairly credible font projects yet he has received all the usual patronising reprise about how long fonts take to make etc. To me that is a shame.

But yes I take your point about monopoly and pricing, my mistake getting carried away probably. Though I got distracted by pricing I don't think I have said anything outrageous, certainly not a cry of outrage as you say.

However I was outraged by Nick Shinn's dubious red herring comparison to the availability of medicine, though that was an aside (persiflage) as we all know.

I think it's a fair comparison to make to a physician, who deals professionally with the politics of intellectual property with regards to the generic drug issue.

I still don't think this is fair but never mind, it's not the debate in hand.

1985's picture

To put things back in real font terms, I can foresee many situations whereby 'lending' a legitimate font purchase would arise. For example, as a passing freelancer in a studio that owns a font. The studio may be small, three regular employers people, one or two occasional freelancers. Still within 5 machines stipulated by the licenses for the original purchase. If the font is deleted upon leaving, have all licenses been used up? The freelancer is not part of the business, therefore they are not on the agreement document for the font, but to criminalize everyone in the situation as pirates and thieves seems draconian. Of course the font probably won't be deleted, fair enough for your concern, but according to many here, by this point the EULA has already been compromised and everyone is now on CIA hit list ;-)

Theunis de Jong's picture

Ray:

I'm curious as to why those font names are screwed up. It reminds me of something TransType Pro would do when converting from TTF to OTF with the default settings.

Counting the "regulars" and "italics", it adds up to the standard list of Gothams from H&FJ: Thin, Extra Light, Light, Book, Medium, Bold, Black and Ultra. Probably Book or Medium account for "Bold" and "Bold Italic", the rest appear all once as Regular and once as Italic.
The exact style name seems to be omitted -- that's the OP's real problem --, and your suggestion of a dumb conversion might be right.

Nevertheless, "only" converting the font from one type to another is also forbidden by most EULAs. Some allow it for personal use, and that's clearly not the case here :-) (Is one allowed with the Larabie fonts?)

ralf h.'s picture

The discussion is still stuck around the difference of licensing vs. buying. An EULA doesn't take away any rights. With a user license agreement a vendor and a user AGREE on a price under certain conditions (as stated in the EULA). What some people here seem to forget: The regular price of fonts is directly based on these conditions! If you want to spread the font in your company: fine! We will set up a multi-user license. If you want to put the font on a server: fine! We set up a server license. If you want a I-can-do-whatever-I-want-license: Okay! But then we will probably end up with a price like those 1500 bucks for a photo lettering disc of one one font style, that you actually owned in the 1970s.
But if you want my font for 30 bucks, you need to agree to the terms of my standard license. If you can't do that, you can't use my fonts. If you break the conditions of my EULA you break a legal contract. If you use my font without a license, that's illegal. This is the law in almost all countries of the world. Nothing to argue with that.
I agree that the word "stealing" might not be appropriate in this context, but EULAs are still legal contracts and the users are bound to it, whether you like it or not. There is no general "right" to do whatever you want with my creative work.

Concerning "loss":
Yes there are font collectors out there, which would never buy a font anyway. So there is no real financial loss for the software vendor. And there are design studios who purchase a license for every font they use. But in reality: Many users fall inbetween. They look if they can find a font they want on their hard drive or the internet, and only buy it, if they can't find it there. (It's natural—they want to increase their profit.) And so, there is a very real financial loss here for the foundries. Even if their is nothing "physically stolen". That's why some foundries don't even put specimen PDFs of their fonts on the web or limit the character set. Because they know, the minute they do it, they will decrease their sales of this font. So please don't try to give the impression that illegal font copies do no harm, because nothing is "stolen".

Concerning "poor" students:
It's funny that every design student I know has a shining new MacBook Pro for 2000 bucks, but no 30 for a font license. Oh yes, the fonts are only for "academic purpose". So illegal copies are okay then. They are not. Design students should respect the value of creative work as soon as possible in their career. What if one student copies the design of another student? The latter would be furious. What if the first student said it was only for "academic purpose"? Would it help? Probably not. So this argument is nonsense.
But I would say that vendors can still do more for academic users. There are foundries with academic discounts, but this is often well hidden somewhere on the website. We clearly offer student discounts of around 30% and a lot of students buy them. It's a full license that is still valid even if you are no student anymore. So you really get a benefit here. And the fonts do work, not like those ripped Gotham-Fonts of Ken W.

Ray Larabie's picture

t's just reminiscent of the way the families show up in Font Book after converting from Win TTF to OTF with TransType Pro. They tend to show up fine in Adobe apps but in Font Book they're displayed pretty much like this, at least when I use it on my own large font families.

eliason's picture

Hi Khaled

And I know what does it take to to build type, I'm actually working on a three font projects right now, one of which involves modernisation of one of Hermann Zapf old typefaces in collaboration with him.

Would you be willing to share your plans for pricing/sales/licensing/distribution on those projects?

1985's picture

Ralf can you answer my above point, not because I think you or anyone else can't but I'd genuinely like to know, thanks. What happens in the situation I described, where the license is for 5 machines?

ralf h.'s picture

@1985 Freelancers are not covered by a standard license agreement – the license is limited to the machines of one company. Freelancers act on their own account and need a separate license. They might charge the company for the expenses.

1985's picture

Regarding price of laptop and being a student, I bought my own as you said, and I bought CS2, I also bought FontLab, full price I think (is their an academic discount?), whilst still a student. Now the price of CS4 academic is half what CS2 academic was and FontLab costs a little more than the entire CS4 sweet at student rate… so I am confused by the value of software.

Students seem to get very easily stereotyped on this website. Also, many of the fonts I used as a student were from the college system library of fonts, many fonts all bought at once that had a fold out page with all 1000 samples on. I don't know what the license was like with that but it seemed to be full of ropey clones(?), Zurich, Swiss (has particularly poor quality of outlines), etc. which some consider legitimate data, not exactly a bold example to students.

Theunis de Jong's picture

... How big a discount does a student jewel smith get on his gold & diamonds?

Bert Vanderveen's picture

I don't know what the license was like with that but it seemed to be full of ropey clones(?), Zurich, Swiss (has particularly poor quality of outlines), etc. which some consider legitimate data, not exactly a bold example to students.

Probably a Bitstream collection and those dopey names are absolutely legal on account of the US copyright laws, which cover trademarks/names/brands, but not the appearance of typefaces… BT-fonts used to be of very high quality. Don't know if that is still the case, because I haven't bought one in ages. (I am all for small foundries!)

1985's picture

@1985 Freelancers are not covered by a standard license agreement – the license is limited to the machines of one company. Freelancers act on their own account and need a separate license. They might charge the company for the expenses.

Thanks Ralf, can't ever imagine it happening that way though… I understand all points made in this thread but EULAs don't seem to correspond to the nature of the coal face. It seems strange making end user agreements whilst ignoring what many end users want and in fact do. Perhaps EULAs could be more sensitive to this particular situation (I guess wording would have to remain as is, perhaps just see in different light), as not to criminalize those who had paid, essentially to reward them with better rights than those who don't pay at all? I think that is the point that ignited the thread. I guess people will just say, if you want more rights, pay more for them and stick by their guns, well I can't argue with that.

Thanks.

1985's picture

... How big a discount does a student jewel smith get on his gold & diamonds?

I don't know but if they figured out how to clone it then that would change the value of gold, right?

ralf h.'s picture

Perhaps EULAs could be more sensitive to this particular situation
There is no particular situation. This is what freelancing is about. You pay your own bills and have your own income. You need to charge your clients in a way so you cover your expenses and still make your living. Why should you be eligible for THEIR software licenses if you work as an independent designer/businessman?

BTW: For FontLab there is a 45% discount for students.

twardoch's picture

Well, I think there *is* one issue regarding students, worth considering:

1. Many colleges or universities that teach design require students to produce interesting/compelling/fresh/whatever projects.

2. Students are in competition with each other, and the grading is typically defined by the average/overall level of the projects in the class.

3. If one student uses a "fresh cool" pirated font, and the other uses a licensed font, but one that he already has because it's, say, a part of a standard font library, bundled with some applications -- then unfortunately, in many cases, the *first* student gets a better grade.

4. Many design colleges and universities do not require licensing proof from students that the assets (fonts, images etc.) they used are legally acquired.

5. Many design colleges and universities do not educate their students about licensing issues, and are rather mean with money when it comes to licensing assets (say, fonts) for use in class.

6. The students behave primarily by the rules set by the SCHOOL. If the school condones piracy, students will pirate.

7. It is the school's obligation to educate and enforce ethical behavior in design among students.

8. We should primarily report our objections to the schools and teachers, not to the students. The student will do *anything* that is permitted or condoned by the school to get the credit -- especially if his fellow students do so. It must be the school that defines the boundaries.

A.

1985's picture

There is no particular situation. This is what freelancing is about. You pay your own bills and have your own income. You need to charge your clients in a way so you cover your expenses and still make your living. Why should you be eligible for THEIR software licenses if you work as an independent designer/businessman?

I know, it's all good on paper but that is not how it goes down. If I tried to charge a studio for a font on a one day job, that they had already paid for I'd be laughed out the door and you know it! What about a half day job? I might as well just work for free too! After all that's what your beef is about way up the food chain. Therefore there is such a situation.

What about two freelancers collaborating on a project and buying a font between them? Do they have to set up a company just for that one project, then dissolve it afterwards and then who gets the rights to the font afterwards?! I am pointing out that the EULA can discriminate against well meaning people in this situation.

William Berkson's picture

Khaled, what you don't address is that all software products are legally in the same situation as fonts: they are generally licensed rather than sold, and can be easily shared.

Do you think that it is horrible that if you buy a copy of MS Windows or Adobe Photoshop that you are not legally permitted to give it away to a thousand people—and they to another thousand?

The whole software industry rests on this licensing model, so if you object to it, I think you should explain how software creators can be paid for their work under another model.

If you object only to fonts being licensed rather than sold, and not to other software being licensed, then why?

Arno Enslin's picture

@ Adam

If you are limited to the fonts, that you have licensed, this does not necessarily limit your creativity, but it can limit the quality of the result of your work. And the aim should not only be doing your best in the limits of what you have licensed. Learning GIMP on the Volkshochschule is not the same as learning Photoshop wherever. A university, which would control, that all fonts and each software, that students use, are licensed, would be a joke. Even if it is a university specialized on theology. You expect three times more morality than it is taught at the medical faculty of almost all universities.

hoefler's picture

Hi Ken,

If you have any questions about whether or not you have licensed this software, please call the the sales desk at my office, 212 777 6640 ext. 208. They'll be happy to clarify anything for you, and can put you in touch with tech support.

Regards,

Jonathan Hoefler
President, Hoefler & Frere-Jones
http://www.typography.com

Theunis de Jong's picture

(me) ... How big a discount does a student jewel smith get on his gold & diamonds?

(1985) I don't know but if they figured out how to clone it then that would change the value of gold, right?

Okay -- today I figgered that out. Want to buy some gold, half price? It's just like the real thing -- only thing missing is the certificate stating it is actually gold (you're not getting a copy of that because my name is on it).

But honestly, it's exactly like the real thing -- a bargain!

aluminum's picture

You can compare IP laws and ethics to many, many different things. In the end, though, IP law and ethics is its own weird, murky beast of a thing.

Arno Enslin's picture

By the way, if Ken would be the kind of person, that is searching for pirated fonts, he probably already would have discovered, that Gotham belongs to the most pirated fonts. And a simple Google search would have shown him, that there are a dozens of unprotected directories, in which Gotham is stored in authentic condition. Gotham is so easily to get, that a request on a warez forum probably would be a joke.

Some of you seem to believe, they could protect their fonts by not providing specimens in PDF format. It is just the other way around. If you provide specimens, three from four pirates share the PDF extract. If you don’t provide them, it needs a bit longer until one of your fonts is pirated, but then four of four pirates share the original, except you still provide your fonts in Type 1 only, because then you can be sure, that someone damages the fonts in a conversion process and your fonts float around in a damaged condition, which can harm your reputation likewise, if potential customers think, that the damaged fonts are the real deal.

Some of your EULA are simply counterproductive. If the only way not to violate EULA is to pirate the font (because you can violate only contracts, in which you have agreed), then you should not wonder, if potential customers don’t license your fonts.

And if those discussions always start just because such a young sun glassed guy is asking a simple question, you make yourself unsympathetic. And being sympathetic is also important in that business.

1985's picture

And if those discussions always start just because such a young sun glassed guy is asking a simple question, you make yourself unsympathetic. And being sympathetic is also important in that business.

Haha, that made me laugh. So much jibe about his sun glasses.

Theunis, perhaps you can license me the alchemy method you discovered? Then everyone can be happy. That is truly my wish.

oldnick's picture

No, I made the comparison to point that in every other profession (not only medicine, but I picked that because it is mine), one have to do a work that adds a new value to get paid, but type designers seems to think that it is inherited right to keep profiting from work that they did only once years ago and still enforce illogical and immoral licensing rights on their customers, which is unique to software world.

Books authors continue to receive royalties long after their work is done. Film actors continue to receive residuals from films or television programs long after their work is done. Pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to receive payment for their products long after the research which developed the drugs is done.

Arno Enslin's picture

Haha, that made me laugh. So much jibe about his sun glasses.

Only because I can’t find this in the Typophile CSS:

#wrapper {
width:840px;
background-image:url(/sites/all/themes/MiamiVice/images/FloridaSun.png);
background-repeat:repeat-y-chromosom;
}

Syndicate content Syndicate content