- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:37:27 -0700
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Cc: "Adam Twardoch" <list.adam@twardoch.com>, <www-style@w3.org>, "Mikko Rantalainen" <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Message-Id: <04DF3C1D-C855-4D88-B330-34CFE05552E4@gmail.com>
On Jun 16, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: >> > Fonts that were licensed prior to the availability of the new >> EULA will need to be repurchased, if EOT rights are desired. >> >> Why, except to squeeze more money out of Web publishers? Earlier in >> the document, it says that this license comes with no extra cost, >> but it sounds more as though the truth is that the cost has just >> been folded into the price that everyone must pay for a Monotype >> font. >> >> People who actually do pay for multiple copies of the same font >> would do so even if the font was in a "raw" format. Those who would >> not would simply convert it, or not use it at all. >> >> > > This is another reality of the world we live in. The new EULA grants > new rights and with them comes a new set of restrictions. > Unfortunately, we cannot grant new rights to customers without > having them agree to abide by certain restrictions in the new EULA. Why does that mean you have to re-charge them to buy a new copy? You could for instance, post something on your Web site that says something to the effect of: Monotype hereby grants licensing rights to existing license-holders of Monotype fonts, which allow said licensees to make convert the font to EOT format and make it available to up to four Web servers per licensed font, or to obfuscate the name to an Monotype-provided GUID and restrict access via CORS, provided they accept all terms of this new, replacement EULA. Those who do not accept the new EULA on this page are not granted any additional rights. Those who desire to make the font available to additional Web servers must purchase additional fonts, each of which may be made available to another four Web servers. For the purposes of this agreement, the terms "Web server", "make available", "CORS", "obfuscated", etc. are defined herein. > In this particular case, it has nothing to do with money. Oh, riiiiiiiggggghhhhht. Its just a coincidence that you chose a path that involved your customers giving you money a second time for the same product.
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 15:38:03 UTC