- From: Tom Rickner <tom.rickner@monotype.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:56:15 -0600
- To: "W3 Mailing List (E-mail)" <www-font@w3.org>
Michael Emmel wrote: >I have ranted once on this issue but the important thing is not so much >free fonts as a good set of standard fonts that are universally available. >The natural conclusion is that they mush be free. If there is another way >to answer this that >is acceptable to the font industry it would be nice. > >Plus from what I can tell there is no motivation in the font industry to >allow such standardization. As a representative of Monotype, I can say that we would have no problem making Times New Roman, Arial and Courier New a font standard on every platform. The problem you seem to have with this is that we would like to be paid for the fonts we make. >And one last comment on "free" software and the font industry crying >about hard it is to make good fonts. > <snip> >I hope that everyone in the font industry that cries about the hard work >put into font design uses no free >software. This would include X windows. When it comes to font tools which we don't make ourselves, we pay good money for the majority of them. The few tools which are free were developed by Apple and Microsoft, in order to promote the OPEN font format of TrueType, which they desired to become a standard. They didn't give away tools to be charitable. They them away to get something in return... a wide selection of fonts in a format which would allow them to extend their system software and applications capabilities, increasing market share, and in the long run, make more money. We are being asked to give away our fonts so we can... give away our only product? As a capitalist, I have a hard time understanding out how I make out in the long run on this one. >The reluctance of the font industry to contribute because of the work >involved in font creation is nonsense. With this attitude there would be >no gcc linux emacs X11 or Unix as we know it today. Hmmm. Having never come in contact with these technologies, I have a hard time feeling your pain. ;-) >Having said this the font industries vigorous attempts to keep font >technology closed smacks of simple attempts to maintain the current >status quo. You've got it totally wrong on this one. The font foundries were the ones who vigorously fought to make things open and standardized. Several of the (so-called) larger font foundries (as if there were any today!) gave their input under NDA to Apple when they were developing TrueType, in the hopes that a single open standard would prevail over the then closed format of Postscript Type 1. It was only after Apple announced TrueType and Bitstream cracked Type 1 encryption that PS was reluctantly opened up as a standard. It is the font foundries who have been pleading with Apple and Microsoft to converge their now divergent flavors of TrueType. It is the font foundries who would benefit most from the adoption of OpenType as the one and only universal format. I don't think you could find a font developer who doesn't want a single unified standard. I for one would welcome the day. Thomas Rickner Monotype Typography
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 1998 17:12:09 UTC