Layered EULAs - Short, Tall and Grande!

Si_Daniels's picture

I wonder if this layered approach to privacy notices, would also work for font EULAs?

http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=idgml-fd6c5fa6-1658-43e9-a938-3c67b8b8b570&News=Global%20Newswatch

Si

Miss Tiffany's picture

I think P22 has taken a similar -- layered -- approach to their EULA. They have a page with the EULA and then they have a "picture pages" version that spells it out with the use of visual aids.

P22 EULA: http://www.p22.com/support/license.html
P22 "Spell it out" EULA: http://www.p22.com/comlicensing.html

hrant's picture

With the de rigeur caveat that the only official EULA is the unreadable one...
Although I still think this sort of thing does help.

hhp

Miss Tiffany's picture

Of course. This is something we discussed last year at TypeCon and ATypI.

Isn't the problem really similar to the idea of font piracy in general? People either want to do what is right or they don't. If someone really does care enough to do what is right and doesn't understand the EULA they will take the steps necessary, ergo pick up the phone, to understand it.

hrant's picture

I don't think anything having to do with humans can be so black-and-white. Different people have different breaking points, and the software EULA is far beyond the tolerance of most any human, which means virtually nobody reads the crap. This is exactly why the "simple EULA" is such a humanly effective idea; but only if the company providing it has good intentions, which is uncommon; good intentions -I mean at the company level, not the individuals working there- can certainly never be found in a company run by share-holders.

> pick up the phone

You really think a phone conversation can solve the central problem?

hhp

Miss Tiffany's picture

Ok. So I generalized a teensy-tiny bit. You are right everyone has their own agency to pick and choose the point at which they will or won't follow [insert what they follow here].

I've had my own experience with not understanding a EULA and calling the foundry for clarification. I do think a phone call can help clarify things.

hankzane's picture

Shouldn't the foundry call you for clarification?

Miss Tiffany's picture

why do you say that Sergej?

hankzane's picture

I mean why should the burden be on the … customer, for the lack of a better word?

(I must say must my question is irrelevant if it's not a question of burden but pure curiosity or search for understanding.)

Si_Daniels's picture

Some foundries will definitely call you, or more likely send a letter (via their lawyer) or an invoice if you diverge from their EULAs too much ;-)

Calling is definitely a good idea, but be sure to get at least an email providing written permission for what you're planning to do.

Cheers, Si

hankzane's picture

This reminds me I should send you a VTT license agreement, Simon. (Can I visit you in Redmond at the end of July?)

hankzane's picture

I image lawyer letters' content being more of a threat than an attemp to clarify things (other than some consequence). How is the reality?

Si_Daniels's picture

I'll be at TypeCon at the end of July, probably back in the Office by the following Tuesday. If you're in town you should definitely stop by.

Most of the letters I've seen seem polite but firm. If the letter is coming from a law-firm rather than a type designer or foundry employee then I suppose there's a threat in there.

Cheers, Si

kegler's picture

We updated the P22 EULA to try to clarify things, but it still causes confusion. We considered a more detailed version that spells out every possible scenario, but that is impossible. The Commercial Licensing web page was simply an attempt to show examples of where a basic license was not sufficient for a user (or group of users). The bottom line is that fonts are tools for designers to use. We don't want to hinder that. If there is any confusion, a quick email usually get a reply the same day.

Syndicate content Syndicate content