An open letter to Monotype

sebsan's picture

Dear Typophile members,

A few weeks ago we sent this open letter to Monotype.
The purpose of this letter is to generate a dialogue around the issue of reinterpreting material sources in a predominantly digital culture.
We are Looking forward to hear your opinions about this matter on this thread or directly on our blog
OSP

======================================================
From:
Open Source Publishing
Rue du Fortstraat 5
1060 Bruxelles, Belgium
mail@osp.constantvzw.org

To:
Monotype Imaging headquarters
500 Unicorn Park Drive
Woburn, MA USA 01801
us@monotype.com

Brussels, 11 April 2011

Dear Monotype,

We are writing you because we just published Sans Guilt [1], which is a reinterpretation of the Gill Sans released under an Open Font license.

We are OSP [2], a design collective based in Brussels that has been working with Free and Open Source software since 2006.

We believe that the 71th anniversary of the death of Eric Gill implies that his work is now in the public domain. To mark this anniversary we decided to liberate the Gill Sans and make a free and open source release of it.

We created three variants from different sources. One was scanned from original drawings (Sans Guilt Drawing Based — DB), another from hand-printed letterpress (Sans Guilt Lead Based — LB) and a third had a digital file as a basis (Sans Guilt Monotype Based — MB). The work was done in collaboration with students from the Royal College of Art in London.

Our liberation of the Gill Sans raises legal and ethical questions surrounding proprietary font software and works of typography that are in the public domain. As designers, we can not answer those questions theoretically so the Sans Guilt project is an attempt at finding practical answers.

To us it seems that the central question about any font reinterpretation is that of identifying and transforming material sources. Throughout history fonts have always been adapted from previous renderings, often transposing the design from one technology to another.

In order to explore this historical context and to understand how to work with this complicated matter, we released Sans Guilt. The DB-variant is based on original drawings by Eric Gill that we found in the RCA library. The images were scanned and then traced using a custom software to produce PostScript outlines. The LB-variant started from the Gill Sans letterpress available at the RCA printshop. Students manually printed the movable type and than scanned the result.

The third variant is possibly the most problematic. Because to us the digital is material too, we wondered if we could use a digital source as a starting point for liberating the Gill Sans. For the MB-variant we set a text in a page layout software with a licensed Monotype Gill Sans. This text was then turned into a bitmap and ran through a software that converted each glyph back into a PostScript outline.

Although Gill Sans as a design work is in the public domain, the font software that we used to create the material sources for our reinterpretation is not. In the case of computer fonts there is a blurring of boundaries between technology and visual design. By turning the text into a bitmap image we did not reuse any part of the digital information of the Monotype Gill Sans itself. We believe that the bitmap is solely a representation of the design work of Eric Gill which we consider to be in the public domain since 2010.

With the creation of Sans Guilt and by writing you this letter we are trying to clarify the complicated legal matter around typographical heritage, technology and intellectual property and we are looking forward to discuss the implications with you.

Kind regards,

OSP

[1] http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/foundry/sans-guilt
[2] http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/about

hrant's picture

Clean approach.
Best of luck!

hhp

eliason's picture

Was the spacing for any of the fonts also reconstructed from original sources?

Jacque's picture

I'm interested to see what kind of response you get.

Si_Daniels's picture

In my personal opinion, reinterpreting an old design is fair game, but naming it something so close to a trademark is not, and is asking for trouble. I'd say rename the font (and maybe pick something less cheesy?) and move on.

BlueStreak's picture

You’ve raised a fascinating legal question. It is a huge gray legal area where I can see some disagreement by many parties, and a case begging for a legal precedent.

I’ve read some unofficial legal interpretations/opinions based on U.S. law that say you cannot legally do what you’ve done, i.e., print and scan a digital font to retrace the shapes to then create a new digital font. Some say the patent law regarding digital fonts protect the outlines (the shapes) even after they are printed. I disagree. Once you print the letterforms, they are no longer software. There is no legal protection from that point on. Patent and copyright law in the U.S. do not protect typefaces. You can legally scan and retrace the letters to create new outlines. You did not copy the protected software. You copied the analog shapes of the letters which have no legal protection in the U.S.

The form of type design appropriation you describe is not new to the digital world. It’s been practiced since the beginning of type.

I think the name Sans Guilt is exceptionally clever, and am eager to see how this proceeds

sebsan's picture

The original post has been slightly amended. Only a few turns of phrases and the addresses at the top were also added later.

Nick Shinn's picture

This is not quite so epochal as it is being touted.
Gill Sans cannot be liberated, because it is not imprisoned.

There have been many interpretations of Gill Sans, by various foundries, often riffing on his name.
Fountain has one (Eric Sans), so does Typodermic (Jillican) and K-Type (Gill New Antique). And Softmaker/Fontsite (Chantilly).
And how about Jan Tschichold's rather blatant 1933 appropriation, now published by Préscence as Tschichold?!

As long as one doesn't engage in point piracy, or copy a recent, distinctive style of type design too closely, there is not really an issue here—certainly not for a design as old as Gill Sans, whose designer is long gone. Or unless you want to get into an argument with someone like me who actually designs new typefaces.

This is not a design issue, but a business and legal matter.

The process of automatically scanning, bitmapping and auto-tracing seems a bit apologetic and half-hearted, as a way of challenging copyright and license restrictions, and not worthy of debate: scanning is not the manipulation of digital data, but a form of photography, and therefore a mechanical, analogue process. To really challenge the law, one would have to perform and publish a bit-to-bit transformation.

Sans Guilt MB is a dull student project, a technical exercise masquerading as critical design.
The technical quality is poor, it doesn't look like the students are picking up much technique or learning anything practical about the aesthetics of line and weight.


Design is not the uninspired manipulation of an exisiting work, serving as second fiddle to prop up a written treatise.
Designers should design. But artists don't have to, and the students involved were from the RCA.

Guilt Sans LB is a paltry offering in a well-worn genre. Metallophile, for instance.

Throughout history fonts have always been adapted from previous renderings, often transposing the design from one technology to another.

That's incorrect. Throughout history, fonts have been made from both new type designs, and as revivals from older designs—not necessarily from specific "renderings".

Bodoni revivals, for instance are rarely facsimiles or straight media transpositions, but are usually new works based on the designer's knowledge of various interpretations within the Bodoni genre, a synthetic assimilation. Neither is the postmodern Bodoni Egyptian an adaptation, although it is pointedly informed by the Bodoni archetype.

Revivals have generally sought to perpetuate the use of typeface designs by transposing them from older technolgies to new, and also to give cultural relevance to new media.

Bendy's picture

Well said Nick.

dirtcastle's picture

Oooh.. Burn. :-)

hrant's picture

> This is not quite so epochal as it is being touted.

Yes Nick, we know that only your work is ever epochal.

hhp

BlueStreak's picture

Mr. Shinn: “The process of automatically scanning, bitmapping and auto-tracing seems a bit apologetic and half-hearted, as a way of challenging copyright and license restrictions, and not worthy of debate: scanning is not the manipulation of digital data, but a form of photography, and therefore a mechanical, analogue process.”

I understand the point you are making, especially since Gill Sans would or could be considered public domain. However, I think the gray area is massive and arguable regarding making a copy of type using mechanical, analog processes. There is an opinion held that if the appropriation originated from the digital font, then it’s a violation for fonts with patent protection (based on U.S. patent law). While I think that is the way it should be, I don't think that is the actual, standing legal basis of the typographic design patent. I interpret the design patent to only protect the digital points and curve algorithms in their digital form.

Here’s a quote: “The Lucida font family (designed by Bigelow and Holmes) were some of the first digital fonts to be given a patent. If a designer were to copy them, even by redrawing them from scratch using pencil and paper, he would be in serious legal trouble.”

That came from this source: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=UNESCO_Font_Lic

Has that opinion of a typographic design patent ever been challenged and/or legally upheld? While Sans Guilt may not be the ideal test case, it does present an interesting question regarding legal ownership of type and fonts.

Nick Shinn's picture

Hrant, by "epochal", I was referring to the way this project has been associated with the expiry of the Gill Sans copyright—70 years after the death of the notorious Mr. Gill. But this is not the beginning of a new era of permissable Gill Sans clones, first to challenge the status quo, because there already exist several Gill Sans clones. So this project's raison d'être—the legal and ethical questions which it purports to raise—are already out there. So what other reason is there to publish these fonts?

Free, badly-made, distress-style fonts is already a well-populated genre, for obvious reasons.

It is disingenuous to state that OSP is "trying to clarify the complicated legal matter around typographical heritage, technology and intellectual property", because its agenda is to promote open source. I doubt that Monotype will play into this publicity stunt.

Anyway, my opinion was sought, and I've obliged.

John Hudson's picture

The whole 'open letter' looks like a publicity stunt to me.

Si_Daniels's picture

>The whole 'open letter' looks like a publicity stunt to me.

Posted here six weeks after sending it to Woburn… Seems as if the stunt is as well executed as the font itself. ;-)

Uli's picture

If Monotype Imaging Inc. adhered to the legal rules proposed by Sebsan, then Monotype would have to remove thousands of fonts from its own website www.monotype.com.

Thomas Phinney's picture

BlueStreak writes: "Some say the patent law regarding digital fonts protect the outlines (the shapes) even after they are printed. I disagree. Once you print the letterforms, they are no longer software."

Do you know what a design patent is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

The first ever design patent issued in the USA, in 1842, was for a typeface.

"Patent and copyright law in the U.S. do not protect typefaces."

Copyright does not protect the abstract concept of the design. Design patent does precisely that.

"You can legally scan and retrace the letters to create new outlines. You did not copy the protected software. You copied the analog shapes of the letters which have no legal protection in the U.S."

All true if and only if there is no design patent in play. In general, there are not a lot of these for fonts; AFAIK only Adobe routinely pursues these. Also, design patents only last 14 years, so that too means that they are irrelevant for Gill Sans.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. Anybody whose livelihood depends on this would be well advised to consult a lawyer on these issues.

Cheers,

T

BlueStreak's picture

Thank you for the information Mr. Phinney. It was my mistake to think the design patent was only applicable to fonts. I was unaware they actually are applied to typefaces as well. Thanks for taking the time to point out the correct facts of the matter.

Thomas Phinney's picture

No problem, Mr Streak.

"It was my mistake to think the design patent was only applicable to fonts. I was unaware they actually are applied to typefaces as well."

What do you mean by the distinction?

To simplify only a little: when I use the terms, "typeface" means the abstract design and refers to potentially an entire family, and "font" means the instantiation of a single style of that design, these days in a digital outline format such as .otf or .ttf. This is ~ the most common usage of the terms in the type industry, though there is no universal agreement on correct usage.

As I understand it, a design patent applies to each individual style of a typeface, as instantiated in a font. What's being patented is the abstract design, but it needs to be instantiated in something (a font) to have something to attach the patent to.

Regards,

T

dezcom's picture

.

sebsan's picture

Thanks to you all for responding to our post.
We have published an article answering some of your questions on our blog.

Regards,
OSP

abattis's picture

@Nick Shinn: The blog post says, "With regards to quality, we are aware that using Potrace doesn’t produce the same kind of optimized Bézier curves that are produced in a traditional type design process. This is not necessarily what we are interested in. We are interested in the process, in ways of producing. Iterative, collaborative. Release early, release often. Test out ideas and processes. The difference between a traditional typeface and an open source typeface is that an open source typeface can be redistributed and modified."

The image you posted,

certainly looks like an autotrace :)

russellm's picture

"... an open source typeface can be redistributed and modified."

and what is the value of that?

Khaled Hosny's picture

If you don't see the value of that then you don't belong to the intended audience of such fonts :)

abattis's picture

Russell: It respects your freedom? :)

Richard Fink's picture

As to this statement:

"This is not necessarily what we are interested in. We are interested in the process, in ways of producing....Test out ideas and processes."

Alternative *ways of producing* has been my focus for eight months now.

Because the idea that the same processes used to create and deliver fonts for a relatively small professional market working with fixed-size media would be the same for a mass market consisting of amateurs, professionals, and everyone in between for a variable size media like the web, just doesn't make any sense.

It wouldn't make any sense even if fonts were a physical, not a digital product.

Imagine if, in 1912, the *average person* had the ability to produce their own newspaper and/or magazine which they could magically distribute to the whole world.
Could the American Type Foundry of 1912 possibly fill the demand for quantity and variety?

Of course not. In this respect, the same economic pressures are at work.

Ahh, but what the frack do I know?

John Hudson's picture

The difference between a traditional typeface and an open source typeface is that an open source typeface can be redistributed and modified.

Um, no. The difference between a non-open source typeface and an open source typeface is that the latter can be redistributed and modified. This has nothing to do with ‘traditional’, which I associate — and the other comments re. ‘process’ concur -- with how a typeface is made not how it is distributed. Plenty of typefaces made in a traditional way -- created by a designer, manufactured to a high level of technical quality -- have been released as open source, and libre, fonts. What the autotracers are doing isn't particular to open source -- plenty of commercial knock-offs of fonts have been made in the same way --, nor is playing the word games of conceptual art to excuse lack of original creative effort.

Richard Fink's picture

@jh
"This has nothing to do with ‘traditional’, which I associate — and the other comments re. ‘process’ concur -- with how a typeface is made not how it is distributed."

Can't agree. The method(s) of production, mode(s) of distribution, supply, demand, nature of the competition within an industry, they're all a pretzel. Intertwined.

Look, I know what you're trying to say. But the idea that the more "sweat of the brow" hand labor is involved in a thing, the more "quality" it has just ain't so.

Thomas Phinney's picture

"But the idea that the more "sweat of the brow" hand labor is involved in a thing, the more "quality" it has just ain't so."

It's not a 1.0 correlation, but it is a significant correlation. Most of the real crap fonts out there were relatively quickly made, and most of the high-quality fonts in the world had a lot more time sunk into their creation.

For the same designer, given the same tools, at the same time, then the relationship between sweat of the brow and quality becomes even stronger.

I am not at all sure that's a point that John was trying to make, however (though he might agree with it).

Cheers,

T

John Hudson's picture

Rich: Look, I know what you're trying to say.

Apparently not. I never said or implied anything in my contributions to this thread about sweat of the brow, hand labour, or quality.

I pointed out that there is a confusion of categories in contrasting ‘traditional’ with ‘open source’. Even accepting your holistic pretzel view, there is a confusion in contrasting a whole ‘traditional’ model of development, distribution and licensing of rights with ‘open source’, which is specifically a model of rights licensing that by its very openness permits but does not presume particular modes of development and distribution. Ergo, there are open source fonts that have been made according to traditional modes of design and production, which are distributed in a variety of ways by divers organisations or individuals. It should also be noted that ‘open source’ is not a singular model of rights licensing, but in fact is a range of models governed by the terms of specific open source licenses (contrast, for instance, the MIT and GNU open source license models).

Nick Shinn's picture

…the idea that the more "sweat of the brow" hand labor is involved in a thing, the more "quality" it has just ain't so.

Surely you have that backwards.
Hand-made is always the best quality, from couture to carwash.

Although that may not be the case in the signage here—but that is the kind of unskilled, vernacular quality/"quality" that emerges when new technologies democratize areas of cultural expression.

Nick Shinn's picture

…the idea that the more "sweat of the brow" hand labor is involved in a thing, the more "quality" it has just ain't so.

You might also find some resistance here to the idea that InDesign's "Optical" kerning is better than "Metrics".

piccic's picture

If you were looking for trouble, then trouble you have found… LOL

Well, a tip of the hat to Nick Shinn, John Hudson, Thomas Phinney.
And just a question for OSP: what do you mean by "font reinterpretation"?
It all starts here, for me. As long as you try to faithfully reproduce a drawing, or a curve you have previously traced on paper, this is not a reinterpretation of anything, it’s "striving to get as close as you can to the design", or to what you had in mind.
I apply the same principle if I start from a very faithful print (not an inkunabula, so to speak).

Richard Fink's picture

@nick
Ah, resistance to the notion I surely expected to find.
A good read - especially for those old enough to remember a time when Japanese cars on American roads were freakish: The Reckoning by David Halberstam.

@tp
Most of the real crap fonts out there....
Ah, forgive my being irritable, but I'm getting a bit sick and tired of hearing about fonts that "suck", fonts that are "icky", fonts that just don't measure up in one unspecified way or another.
All subjective crap with no specifics. What is specifically wrong that make them crap?
And crappy for what purpose? I'm waiting for a persuasive write-up of what constitutes a "quality" font. Name calling - which is what that is, gets us nowhere.

@jh
I pointed out that there is a confusion of categories in contrasting ‘traditional’ with ‘open source’.
Ah, perhaps I did miss your point. But it's been fun anyway.
I'll re-read and decipher. I'm having trouble with the category names and what they signify.

I'll be back.

piccic's picture

What is specifically wrong that make them crap?

Well, I suppose the fact that "crap" is not an opinion.
You have to be careful as you walk…
:)

Richard Fink's picture

Ah, ok. confusion seems to be between "fonts marketed in the traditional manner" and "fonts constructed in the traditional manner".
And "traditional" is a bad term in both instances because digital fonts just haven't been around long enough to have anything that I would call "tradition".
Typefaces, yeah. Their digital incarnations, no.

However, I do agree that the licensing aspect (and of course, the price of the font, if there is one), is just as important as anything else. Important parts of the overall "quality" of the font. Price is one aspect of quality. Licensing permissions are another aspect of quality. On a par - or even more important - than the visual design.

You might feel I'm stretching the word "quality" beyond it's ordinary meaning. I am, but there's ample precedent for it: it has a professional and philosphical meaning as well.
I'm using the word in the sense that it is used in manufacturing. For instance, in the term: Total Quality Management.

Quality is not what the producer puts in. It's what the customer gets out.

Nick Shinn's picture

Licensing permissions are another aspect of quality. On a par - or even more important - than the visual design.

But tell us what you really think of graphic design.

JamesT's picture

I'm still not sure what the letter the OP posted and the argument made by Mr. Fink are attempting to accomplish.

Some things require trade skills--"sweat of the brow"--so to speak. Some can (and should) be produced mechanically (I'm thinking of products where consistency is a priority). If I decided I'm going to sell hand-made machine screws, no matter how much time I spent making them, I would most likely not meet the same level of quality as a mass-produced screw.

Some products can exist in both worlds--with an established distinction between the "handmade" and the "mass-produced".

In the latter, both have their own, specific, qualities which would place one above the other in terms of desirability in different circumstances. This difference is usually in regards to aesthetics. While the mass-produced item may fulfill the desired function, aesthetically, the hand-made may be more pleasing.

Richard Fink's picture

I'm still not sure what the letter the OP posted and the argument made by Mr. Fink are attempting to accomplish.

Hey, whatever this "open letter" is trying to accomplish other than to get in Monotype's face, beats me.
Me, I'm just riffing off of some stuff other people wrote. Drift.

@nickshinn

>But tell us what you really think of graphic design.

If this is a real question: I am amazed and delighted by much of the work I see. And you? What do you really think of graphic design?

JamesT's picture

For some reason, I thought you had a stake in "Open Source Publishing".

Thomas Phinney's picture

Richard: Yes, I do think you are stretching the definition of quality when applied to a font. And not in a particularly useful way, IMO.

Pricing and license terms are for the most part external to the font. When I write about font quality today I am concerned with things intrinsic to the digital font file. I wrote this some 5 1/2 years ago:
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2005/12/quality_in_type.html

I wish I had talked more about spacing as well, but other than that, that write-up is a good place to start.

Frustration with quality of existing revivals of an obscure typeface led me to recently resume work on my own:
http://www.thomasphinney.com/2011/07/reviving-columbus-and-font-quality/

I think the three screen shots at the bottom of that post speak for themselves as to font quality. I imagine almost any Typophile reading this post can tell quickly which one is mine....

Cheers,

T

Nick Shinn's picture

@Richard: What do you really think of graphic design?

IMO the shape of a curve is more important than licensing permissions.
Business and technology enable design up to a point, but then they get in the way.
From the general perspective of sustainability, we could slow down a lot.
There are more and more new fonts being published, quite a few the product of huge amounts of work over many years.
Maybe not quite as many man-hours as went into skinnying up Captain America...

piccic's picture

"Typefaces, yeah. Their digital incarnations, no."

Well, I think quality is related to the technical format of a given historical moment, sure. But what I was suggesting in an implicit way was related to the care, you may say the attention, you put into a product. Which, in the case of a typeface involves an aspect which I think can’t be reduced to one of its parts (i.e. "aesthetic", "technical", etc.), but to the whole of it.

To make you an example, I take the type on your website.
The typeface you used in your logo seems to be derived by autotracing (I may be wrong, given it's tiny, but I suppose so). Autotracing is a thing I find mostly inappropriate, since – in my opinion – there isn’t a piece of software following faithfully complex curves and transitions.
This is particularly noticeable at bigger point sizes, but on paper looks unpleasant also in small sizes. And that’s just one aspect, I am not getting into spacing, kerning and overall evaluations of the typeface.
Please note I have taken as an example a typeface which is irregular in its vocation, but I criticized (in this instance) an aspect which I do not consider only technical.

Scrolling down your page: aliased type, now that we can use webfonts, to me it becomes more problematic than ever. In my browser I have difficulties to read the summaries of the articles, because the point size is small, the typeface you choose is quite light and tightly spaced. In many cases, small point sizes would be infinitely better aliased.

Business and technology enable design up to a point, but then they get in the way.

@Nick: I agree, although each technology has its advantages in defining a part of its value. There is to say that digital designs are somewhat "disincarnated" as long as they don’t get printed. And I wouldn’t live in the world of "Freejack". :)

Richard Fink's picture

@tp
Richard: Yes, I do think you are stretching the definition of quality when applied to a font. And not in a particularly useful way, IMO.
While I disagree with the "useful way" part of that statement, yes, it's a symantic stretch, but a succesful one, historically, in other contexts with other work products. However, I really didn't expect (and now I REALLY don't expect) the idea to fly with frequent commenters and readers of Typophile. What you consider external, I consider instrinsic. And that's fine.
I certainly have no problem dealing with the aesthetic elements of a font as a thing separate and apart from other qualities it might have. How you define your work and the purpose of your work has consequences - is what I'm saying.

Nick Shinn says:
"IMO the shape of a curve is more important than licensing permissions."

Now, I think the licensing permissions are ten times more important - but that judgment arises from an underlying definition of what you are trying to achieve with the font in the first place.
In the next few years, what's more important than what will be tested in the marketplace and we'll see.

A question for Nick: I always found Jimi Hendrix's onstage histrionics a turn-off. But audiences loved it. (In fact, rock impressario Bill Graham - who certainly had a stake in keeping the audience happy - considered Hendrix's stunts - like playing guitar behind his back, or with his teeth, or lighting the guitar on fire - undignified pandering. He told him to forget that stuff and just play.)

Was Hendrix's guitar playing more important than the stage antics? And if so, why was it more important?

@jamesT:

>For some reason, I thought you had a stake in "Open Source Publishing".
No moreso than everybody does with "open source publishing" as a general category.
What do you mean by stake? And - I'm curious - how'd you link me with "open source publishing"?

@picicc

As far as the web fonts on my blog: I'll have to come back to get into that.

rich

John Hudson's picture

Was Hendrix's guitar playing more important than the stage antics?

Yes.

And if so, why was it more important?

Would anyone have gone to just watch a man writhing around on a stage? Would they buy and listen to recordings of a man writhing around on a stage? The physical, visual performance was an adjunct to the music, hence secondary, hence less important. It was part of the live performance of the music, but while the music is separable from the stage antics and remains valuable, the opposite is not true.

Nick Shinn's picture

Was Hendrix's guitar playing more important than the stage antics? And if so, why was it more important?

This is Typophile, not EULAphile.
I identify as a type designer, not a dotcom CEO.

**

The antics were part of the playing, literally. More of a grey area, purists might consider his engagement with fuzzboxes, wah-wah peddles, feedback and stereo to also be shallow tricks—did you hate on Dylan when he went electric? Were the 'fro and the Carnaby Street duds really necessary? The copious ingestion of drugs? Dude, it's rock 'n' roll!

Licensing permissions aren't typography.
This isn't to say that the business and legalities of typography don't have an effect on it, but they impact on everything.

Thomas Phinney's picture

I agree with Rich that the terms of the license are immensely important. I also think that discussing EULA details should be seen as completely within the purview of highly appropriate topics for Typophile, even if those details don't interest everyone. No, EULAs are not typography or type design per se, but they are exceedingly closely related.

I have a love/hate relationship with EULAs myself. I find them interesting in the abstract, I think they are incredibly important, I don't mind scanning EULAs to find important license conditions... and yet one of the most boring things I've ever done was to try to craft a font EULA. Ugh. I still need to go back and finish it, but... ugh.

Cheers,

T

JamesT's picture

@Richard Fink,

I meant the group that posted this letter, specifically. I assumed that based on my first quick reading of this thread.

Richard Fink's picture

@jh

Iggy Pop ;)

----

I'll come back for one more analysis of the fonts on my blog. (FWIW)

Too bad it started out with that open letter to Monotype free fonts manifesto type stuff.

One thing that I think's appropriate to that: People who are absolutely confident in their "rights" simply exercise them without any fanfare. That goes for what's public domain, or proprietary, it cuts all ways. (Got that from copyright attorney William Patry - and from what I can see, it's correct. Whenever someone's barking about their "rights" those rights are either mythical or difficult to enforce, or something.)

dezcom's picture

I have removed the previous comment since my new thread is now visible. Please respond on my new thread:
http://typophile.com/node/84331

Syndicate content Syndicate content