On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > However, even if you dispute this latter claim, we must still keep in mind >> that dealing with licensing crap is something which explicitly makes us >> *less* happy. It gets in our way without improving our designs. Thus, the >> decrease in our happiness due to dealing with licensing crap must be >> considered together with the increase in our happiness from using commercial >> fonts in any discussion. This sidetrack started out as a reminder to keep >> this simple fact in mind. >> >> ~TJ > > If I have to deal with "licensing crap" in > order to be able to use (say) Zapfino on > the web, then so be it : far far better to > deal with "licensing crap" in order to be > able to use a font crafted by a master than > to be able to use a zillion fonts that have > either been stolen, plagiarised or created > by well-meaning but unskilled amateurs. > You are committing a serious error in assuming that all free fonts are "stolen, plagiarised or created by well-meaning but unskilled amateurs." Just to bring up the most obvious counterpoint, what about professionally-designed fonts which have subsequently been released under free licenses? I will charitably assume that such examples merely slipped your mind while you were composing your previous email. As well, you are being dishonest if you intend to assert that you would accept *any* degree of "licensing crap" in order to use Zapfino. There is certainly a limit to how much you are willing to put up with before you say "Too much!" and avoid using the font. Granted, your tolerance for such things may be higher than mine. I merely ask you to keep in mind that such "licensing crap" *is* a cost that must be weighed in any proposal. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 17:48:22 UTC