@ Miss Tiffany:

/Here's a page which contains more fun links to other conversations we've had here in the past on our old friend the EULA./

I saw that page after I posted this thread. There's some interesting stuff in there. Maybe we should add a list of foundries that have permissive licenses?

@ Ralf:

/Not sure that this is the truth. How many have you compared?/

I looked at Linotype and Adobe. It appears that Adobe has an extremely permissive license for some of their typefaces (the ones they deliver with InDesign?).

/What does that even mean? It's pointless to have ambiguous statements in a legal document./

It's true that it's ambiguous, but you see this clause in many licenses. I've even seen things that forbid calling the font software from any programme, which appears to disallow any use of the software whatsoever. A better clause might be: you can embed our software, or at least allow subset embedding.

/This is absolute craziness. With the move to digital embedding in non-editable formats should be permitted/

Regarding the embedding: after contacting a couple of foundries it appears there is a different license mainly because foundries want to prevent easy extraction of fonts. As such they charge higher fees for this (around 3 to 5 times as much) to make up for possible lost demand. The actual use case is not that much different.

/Which country are you talking about? Font licensing doesn't just happen in the US./

I'm referring to EU law. The US is actually much stricted in this regard with respect to software licenses, resale permissions, and patents.

/A very bold statement. And that's a great example of why EULAs are so specific in there restrictions. Otherwise it's all a matter of opinion. And again: a legal document like an EULA is pointless if it's not clear./

True. It's interesting to ask an IP lawyer (or a couple, you know, they might have different takes on this). However, a legal document like a EULA is also pointless (beside a scare tactic, which can work counterproductively) if it includes non-enforceable clauses, such as no resell permission for fonts sold in the EU.

@ Frode

/Have you seen our licensing terms?/

The licensing terms of Monokrom.no are exteremely reasonable. We should create a list of foundries such as yours that offer a reasonable EULA :) It appears that they're hard to find.

@ hrant

I think you've nailed the two points. Regarding the scare tactics: I think an important point is educating people of what their rights are. In the EU there are broad rights for software resale (that actually build on laws that were in place before modern software was invented) and reverse engineering for compatibility reasons.

Regarding modification: While direct modification might not fall under reverse engineering, writing an intermediary program that sits between the font and an application would probably fall under this. However, there might still be issues with design patents / copyright. However, then you're probably safe under copyright. I'm not sure a lawyer would even be able to give a straightforward answer to there issues. Have there been any test cases? (I'd really like it if anyone could bring some forward.)

@ cdavidson

/ As a word of caution, it is never good policy to adopt a EULA written by someone who is not a lawyer. The problems that Ralf have pointed out - and there are others, too - are significant. /

It's probably not a very good idea either to adopt a EULA written by a lawyer who is not familiar with your target market, and your audience. AFAIK Village wrote their own EULA, and had it vetted by their legal councel, with a small damage limitation clause added.

@ sondre m

The different between a print and electronics is that for one you have stuff being processed by computers, and lots of different laws start applying.

@ Ralf H.

Note that even the resultant vector image can be tied to all kinds of laws. Various foundries limit the use of font results in logo's. I wonder how enforcable this would be if you didn't actually agree to any EULA, but just outlined the text from a the demo box of the foundries website. (Note that I don't advocate this. I'm just wondering about the legal implications.

I'm thinking that outlining the font would then no longer involve inclusion of the software right? Also: subsetting of the font would probably be too much to fall under fair use.

@ sondre m

/ it makes me annoyed and angry and inclined to go for free fonts rather than hassle through the legal muddy waters of these EULAs and the lack of reason behind it /

That's why I'm proposing a reasonable reference EULA, and compiling a list of foundries that have reasonable EULAs, such that normal use is permissible.

@ Ralf H.

More often than not it will be a subset. This will be a lot more muddy.

@ sondre m

I think outlining should probably put you out of harms way. Although some foundries might disagree.

@ cebg

Embedding (with subsetting) in PDFs is indeed very important nowadays. Just outlining destroys all the hinting AFAIK, and then you might just as well start with an unhinted font o_O

@ Frode

I think you approach of making your EULA as reasonable and understandable as you can is very good, and should be encouraged more videly.

@ sondre m

Currently fonts are mostly seen as software. Interestingly this also allows resale per the recent Oracle v. UsedSoft ruling in the EU. This hasn't yet been determined for ebook and music AFAIK.

@ hrant

/ BTW Tiffany, are you thinking what I'm thinking? For Typecon? :-) /

Do tell us what you're thinking :)

@ Thomas Phinney

/ In my experience with EULAs, the small “independent” foundries have more widely varying terms than the big ones, both more permissive and more restrictive. /

After some more research this appears to be very true. Although the big foundries have very different terms as well. For example, Adobe has many different permission for various fonts in their collecion.

/ So, check your license, and make buying decisions based on your needs and what the license permits. /

Indeed. Maybe we should make this easier for people. After reading one paragraph of legalese you soon loose the will to live.

@ cebg

Ouch. That's a good lesson for all of us.

@ Ralf H.

/ Personalized prints /

This would probably put you squarely in a position of requiring another license for many EULAs. For those that allow sending a copy of the font to the foundry, often disallow the active use of said font.

/ This has nothing to do with protection. /

This very much as something to do with protection. For embedding in application the extraction of fonts is exteremely easy. Also, for disallowing modifications or conversions the cited reason by foundries appears to be quality control.

@ xy

I can understand your desire to protect your carefully crafted fonts. It seems inate to many designers :)  However, look at what Bringhurst says: no font is perfect, and all need tweaking. As hrant has noted asking permission is good and all, but it puts the typographer at the mercy of the designer, while they should be at the mercy of the text (paraphrasing Bringhurst here).

/ On top of that you have "free" fonts that are adding to this mess, with, most of the time, very questionable quality. /

That is the nature of the long tail I guess. At the moment there is a handful of very respectable open source typefaces. I think this will only increase.

/ Not every foundry has the money to pay a lawyer that will also write the EULA in simple language. /

Write your own EULA in plain language and have it vetted by a lawyer, as Village did.

/ It will take you 10 minutes and help more than complain on "the internet" about foundries and how annoying they are. /

I have done this already. The response is mostly that I should vote with my money. Which is what I would very much like to do. However, to give extra impact, I'd like to make this more of an issue, and give those foundries with reasonable EULAs additional attention, so other people can more easily vote with their money too.

/ When somebody spend 2 years on a typeface, he might be able to explain you why he doesn't want to let his work be used in a certain way, and why he sees that as detrimental. /

I can surely understand. But what is your opinion of someone who has spent decades living in a house that they can't sell refurbish because of architectural design rights (http://www.architects.nsw.gov.au/download/Architects%20and%20Intellectual%20Property%20Article%20Board%20advice%20April%2020121.pdf)?

Also, typefaces for the general market make trade-offs by definition. As such, for optimal use they probably need careful adjustments for a perfect fit with the text. In InDesign you can apply metric and optical kerning. However, in many programmes only the metric kerning can be applied. If the designer wants to change kerning they'll have to do it at the side of the font, or write some brider between the font and the application.

Would you also forbid people from putting hideous stickers on their bumpers? A designer has spent many years carefully crafting the curves of the car! Typefaces and cars are tools, that should be useable by the user as they wish, or as the text dictates.

@ cebg

/ So, check your license, and make buying decisions based on your needs and what the license permits. /

Indeed. However, at the moment this is very difficult. There was a spreadsheet floating around some time ago with the various permission encoded into it. We should pick up where this left, and create a listing of what foundries permit what things in their EULA, and have a 'hall of fame' for those with permissive EULAs.

@ hrant

/ And most of all, putting a no-mod clause mostly only hurts the people who are on your side, who respect you. The rest will do it anyway. /

Indeed

/ Sadly Capitalism has made that sort of thing immoral. /

A great liberator and suppressor at the same time.

/ Lastly, as a rule people will at a minimum learn how others feel, and refine their handling of situations. /

Yes. I think more communication on the issue is what is important.

@ Ralf H.

/ Please give examples. I really don't see any of that. /

Resale of software is now legal in the EU (if you have a lifetime license). Many foundries still forbid it.

/ There is nothing phony about it. /

Maybe not illegal, but it might certainly be phony.

/ Software is made to be used, not recompiled and modified. /

With a font, any thorough use will involve modifications to things like kerning. To make these changes easier it is helpful to integrate them in the font file itself. As Bringhurst states: no font is perfect, and "Respect the text first of all, the letterforms second, the type designer third, the foundry fourth."

Also,

/ If a user needs a modification, they can just ask. /

And don't have any guarantee.

/  User's complain because something doesn't work. /

The user sends the modified file. The foundry checks the md5sum, and sees that the font is modified, and offers no support. They can even easily automate this!

/ No one needs this. Not the foundry and not the user. If you really need to modify the fonts, just ask. If it's not allowed, then you might use other fonts. But being a type user myself I don't need to force all foundries to remove their no-modifcation clauses, just because I would be able to do minor modifications myself. It's not standard type use and that's why a standard license agreement doesn't have to reflect that. /

Apparently people do. And don't equate "people don't ask" with "people don't do this".

@ hrant

I can give examples of foundries directly, but I'd put them in a negative light directly, while they've been rather courteous in their replies.

Indeed opportunism.

/ In the US at least, I can't accuse the legal system of being clear and sincere... /

True that. Altough anything in which technology is involved tends to be extremely murky.

/ I guess the reason I emphasize the no-mod clause is the good news: it's the only really sore spot for me. /

It's also what tends to be a sort of lithmus paper for separating reasonable EULAs from non-reasonable ones.

/ The only reason I'm "lobbying" this is because I think it's unethical. Because I'm not a lawyer. /

Same here. I could just go on with my life, happily modifying fonts knowing no-one is going to care anyways.

@ Ralf H.

/ They just have a problem and want it fixed. /

Require them to send you a copy of the font in question. Setting up an automated system for this is easy.

/ But if they don't know and the user messes around with the fonts, this might cause the user endless hours of testing and bug-fixing. /

Helvetica is the end-all and be-all answer to all our typographical issues. Or, any one of the gazillions of Garamond cuts. we shall no longer improve on them. Furthermore, we shall not have any theming of computers anymore, nor shall we have ...

/ If the user happens to be a type-designer who can do stuff like that without breaking the font, then the foundry might just give him the permission to do it. /

Or her.

/ In both cases, starting a dialogue with the foundry takes just minutes and helps both sides. /

Which is what I've tried. Most likely the type designer isn't going to change their opinion.

/ So you ask the foundry before you purchase the license and then base your purchase decision on their answer. It's simple. /

Choosing a font is hard enough. The permissions tend to be hidden in the fineprint. An easy way of looking at what is permitted would be handy. Maybe we should do a feature request to FontFont for having it included in their FontBook iPad app. Also, we could create a list of agreeable EULAs.

/ I don't see why we need to make such a fuzz about it and change 100% of the contracts, so 0.1% of the users are freed from the requirement to ask before they make a change to a font. /

It's a petition. You don't need to join if you don't want to.

@ hrant

/ and can cause the foundry to say "no", and keep a close eye on you. /

Indeed

/ No, life is not simple. /

It never is ;)

/ Everybody pays for being unreasonable. When a foundry has an unreasonable clause in their EULA, they pay for it, one way or another. Fighting unethical behavior is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't want to live like a lawyer, sorry. /

Indeed.

@ ralf

/ I don't see the »unreasonable part«. /

I do. But this is up to standards of reasonableness. I'm looking for a 'sane' EULA that respects the realities of how typographers actually use fonts, not how you would like to have them used.

/ A restriction is not unethical or unreasonable just because it's a restriction. /

Unless it's goes appears to take away rights that the consumer has but may not be aware of, such as the right to resell software.

/ rental car /

I don't rent software, I buy it.

/ That's my final statement. I am not interested to continue this discussion for 10 pages. /

Way to go.