Foundries that allow font upgrades

Delete's picture

About a year ago I changed from Windows to OSX. I had purchased several postcript and truetype fonts for Windows and needed up upgrade these to opentype versions. Fortunately, most of my purchased fonts were standard or pro opentype fonts.

I discovered some companies allow font upgrades and others do not. Adobe and Monotype do not (at least beyond 30 days, per their tech support). However Storm, Teff, HF&J and others do. I would prefer to purchase future typefaces from foundries that allow upgrades (for a price) rather than require complete repurchase of fonts. Does anyone have a list of foundries which do not forget about you after 30 days?

George Thomas's picture

If you have Windows TrueType fonts they will work with OS X, however the PS ones won't.

The best thing to do is just make sure you buy only OpenType when possible in the future.

charles ellertson's picture

Well, if money is a concern for you, I can't imagine why you got a Mac. You pay a lot to swing with the in crowd. Far cheaper to just buy another black outfit...esp. since the Isle of Gough is uninhabited...

Chiding aside, the Adobe license allows you to upgrade your Adobe-licensed fonts yourself. No cost. I only know the expensive way to do that -- Fontlab Studio. But my decision was made to allow me to write new OT features, etc. etc., with a one-package piece of software. FontLab Studio lets one do this while maintaining a general ignorance of computer programming...

If your existing fonts were good enough for your work, and you just want access to them again, I'm pretty sure there are a couple of relatively inexpensive programs out there that will let you put the otf wrapper around an exiting Type 1 font, so they'll again be available for you to use.

Somebody here probably knows where there is a $100 or so font tool that's quick & easy to use.

Note this isn't permitted by many font publisher's licenses, including the Monotype conglomerate.

As there are now gazillions of fonts out there, one factor I use in deciding to buy a font family -- I look at it as an investment -- is what the license permits. This is true for most of my clients -- university presses -- too.

As an example, another thing to check is what the license permits in terms of using the fonts in digital publications, and what the fees are, if additional. Some font publishers require you to pay a not insignificant sum for each font, for each use. If you are part of a publishing a periodical, that can add up. I've seen scholarly journals published quarterly where each digital issue has an added cost of $250 -- $1,000 extra per year -- for font licensing.

Typography.Guru's picture

Does anyone have a list of foundries which do not forget about you after 30 days?

I think there are no regular »upgrade paths« in the font industry, because that format change from Type1 to .OTF was or is a one time thing. I don't expect such a change anytime in the foreseeable future.
So for the future, if you stick to TTF/OTF you should be fine. All foundries should provide you with (usually free) upgrades for the same font type. So if you buy a license for SOMEFONT.otf with the version number 1.0, you will certainly get 1.1 for free and also very likely 2.0 and so on. If anything, that's an advantage over »regular software«.

Concerning TrueType fonts: You don't need to repurchase those! Just transfer them to the Mac!
If you mainly rely on Adobe layout software you can also continue to use your Windows Type1 fonts. Just put them in the Adobe font folders.

You pay a lot to swing with the in crowd.

The irony is that using this silly argument is a perfect example of »swinging with the crowd« …

Somebody here probably knows where there is a $100 or so font tool that's quick & easy to use.

Transtype for example. A new version for Mac is currently a free Beta.

Still: Even if the EULA allows it, it's often not a good suggesting for font users to mess with the font files. You decompile a software and compile it again. That's not like opening a TXT and saving it again! You will very likely break something, even if you don't change anything deliberately. For example, because the font editor you use, just can't decompile every detail of the font file properly and you will generate a new file that has new problems.
Dealing with these problems can be time-consuming and in the end, you will have probably spent more time (→ money) than when you would have bought the new versions in the first place.

Delete's picture

Thank you everyone for the comments. I found the second web reference from Jens interesting that smaller foundries often would give upgrade paths. I realize there are several inexpensive or even free downloadable or web based font converters available, but I am not sure they preserve kerning tables or other features reliably (as some of you have commented above). I have had good luck with Commercial type foundry, Storm, etc. Some foundries are somewhat helpful (Bertholdt) and allow upgrades up to a year. Monotype and Adobe have been poor (Monotype being bad all the way back to the old CD unlocking system from a decade or so ago). Teff has a progressive upgrade price where basically one pays 25% of the upgrade for each year after original purchase (so one needs a repurchase after four years). I had good luck with Tiro, but they have pulled most of their older fonts. The points raised about additional fees for embedding, etc. are good, and that is something I also consider in a purchase.

Even with opentype, some of the postscript opentype fonts will not be read by some programs (e.g.: Madcap Flare, which is only really reliable with true type fonts and some true type opentype fonts). Dutch type library had upgrade options for older postcript fonts to opentype, but Teff has some of its more expensive fonts (like trinite) only available in postscript Win or OSX formats. When one considers the variety of uses of fonts (print and web based, in 3D and video applications, CAD programs, etc), it is good to have options for upgrades or sidegrades for fonts in the interest of compatibility. The reason I use a MAC now is that I spent a small fortune in fixing Dell computers before buying from a more reliable computer manufacturer; and I do collaborative work in video where some of the files I get are from strictly Windows (Vegas) or Mac (Final Cut) sources and I maintain dual boot partitions on an Apple computer. I don't care about the "crowd".

I believe that the creators of type deserve proper reimbursement for their time and artistic work. There are a few fonts that are significantly overpriced, that that is not the rule for most. However, the arguments made in the Jens links mirror my own. It sounds like the best options are to purchase from the smaller foundries directly rather than from redistribution sites (,, etc.). Adobe has its own business practices outside of font resale, and it appears to be reducing tech support to save money. They are moving to a lease based system for software, with substantial penalties for holding out on upgrades for several versions and purchasing upgrades the old way.

charles ellertson's picture

You will very likely break something, even if you don't change anything deliberately. For example, because the font editor you use, just can't decompile every detail of the font file properly and you will generate a new file that has new problems.

Spoken like someone protecting a revenue stream. Pretty much every Adobe font we have originated as a Type 1 font, and I've converted most of them to otf. Occasionally, as with Minion, I went back to the Type 1 multiple masters fonts instead of using the .otf supplied by Adobe.

OK, not fair, I've been using font editing programs since Altsys Fontographer 1.something, and could be considered experienced.

But here's the deal. For display fonts, I don't do anything except open up the Type 1 font, click on the automatic .oft features in FontLab -- sometimes there are some, sometimes not -- and "generate font" as an otf. We view all display fonts as requiring handwork by the compositor; "OT features" don't save much time here.

Number of problems with Adobe fonts: 0 (zero). Occasionally there is a problem with a free .ttf font -- when the font wasn't prepared correctly in the first place.

So I'd say, as a user with about 500 fonts converted, you will almost never break anything. I have never had a problem, at least with an Adobe font, or other font from a professional foundry where I have permission to modify.

But I'd also say this: if you try to bring up a Type 1 font aimed at text, with the automatic features offered in the OpenType format, you will spend a fair bit of time. If you could bill that time, you'd make far more money buying the font & billing your time. What if you can't bill the time? Or what if you want to fix some of the inevitable mistakes in kerning, or add features (which, after all, are only time-savers)? The picture is less clear.

Still, I find your answer both knee-jerk and wrong. Give me an example of something that went awry.

Delete's picture

Btw, several of my favorite fonts are not available in TTF/OTF yet. Merlo and Trinite are examples. Some upgrades are not for format changes. Adobe has modified kerning tables over time with some of its fonts to make them look better. Contrary to some of the opinions above, I have not had good luck with upgrading Adobe fonts. Some were delivered with older software and some as special "gifts" for purchase. Adobe generally lacks record that one even has these fonts. Upgrading Adobe Garamond Premiere Pro, for instance, was not something that was possible.

charles ellertson's picture

Well, Trinité doesn't have kerning. Or ligatures. When I bought it, the Euro was about $0.85, a plus over now. But you had to send both a signed agreement to the license and the money before they'd send you the fonts. After much negotiation I did get them to change the license for us a bit. Anyway, without such goodies, an OT version doesn't save you much time.

Merlo is offered in a couple places, albeit they're slightly different versions. I believe the Village license is very accommodating. Ask, and make your own OT version.

As far as "improved" kerning, yeah, sure. Dunno about you, but I always do my own kerning. Goes back to the days before PostScrit, how do you think we worked?

If the type designers can get uppity about their skills, so can the rest of us. Nowadays, all the graphic designers think they can set type. OK, show me the work. If it's long, like a book, all the automation you can get helps a lot. But that automation should come from like-minded people. For example, kerning for display type is usually no good for text. Adobe has some howlers, too, just like everyone else.

And remember that Adobe, indeed, all the font publishers, don't know who's going to be using the type, and what the output will be. They probably have to assume that people using MS Word and a laser printer are their biggest customer base. Can't blame them for that.

Just for fun -- from the types you like, I'd guess that most of your work is printed offset on coated stock, and is probably bookwork. Art books maybe?

Typography.Guru's picture

Spoken like someone protecting a revenue stream.

Not it's not. This an equally unnecessary assumption as your comment why someone would chose a certain computer brand.

charles ellertson's picture

Mr. Herrmann, I don't think it is unnecessary assumption. Typophile is, I believe, for all people who, what, have an affinity for type? Why would you assume that a user of type would inevitably screw up a typeface? And if you believe that, you shouldn't let type be used at all, save perhaps by the type designer.

More importantly, why tell someone relatively new to leave certain things to other professions? E.g., aside from casting a kern, where do you think the bulk of kerning programs came from? From compositors, when photocomp came out. Photocomp fonts did not come with kerning. The compositors wrote the kerning programs, if they were used. We also were known to make up new glyphs in photocomp, at least, with the user-friendly systems such as the Linotype V-I-P.

I confess haven't read you blog, or your books, and so may be doing you an injustice. If what you write in your books differs from what you post here, I apologize for the assumption. But the attitude you're espousing is that of a protective type designer, with no notion of the use of type. Whatever your attitude on the matter, discouraging people from learning about the use of type serves the community poorly. What is type for, if not to be used?

& just BTW, what software do yo think Adobe uses for their font work? For the glyph work, it's FontLab.

You wrote:

You decompile a software and compile it again. That's not like opening a TXT and saving it again! You will very likely break something, even if you don't change anything deliberately

If FL will open the font up right once, it'll likely open it up right twice, eh? -- Else the machines in Palo Alto could never once open the .otf, relying on the .vfb only, forevermore. Decompiling & recompiling is not a black art, successful only with the appropriate chants and the addition of an eye of newt.

Typography.Guru's picture

I have no »revenue stream« to protect. Our own fonts specifically allow any user to do any modifications they want.
But I still don't recommend it – from a user’s perspective. I run a typography help board for over 10 years with over 100.000 posts. I know what font problems users have. And fonts messed up through font format conversions is a problem I have seen hundreds of times. So I speak purely from experience.
Fonts are compiled software made to be used, not to be modified. If you have done the latter successfully, that's fine for you, but that doesn't make it true for everyone else and every possible font.

charles ellertson's picture

I run a typography help board for over 10 years with over 100.000 posts. I know what font problems users have.

That's interesting, I really am curious. Is there a url where one can see some of these?

And fonts messed up through font format conversions is a problem I have seen hundreds of times.

That's interesting, too. Though I wouldn't take adding an otf wrapper around a Type 1 font as a *conversion.* Nor can I remember any issues with "converting" a Type 1 PostScript font from Mac to PC format, or vice versa.

For a long time I wouldn't trust ttf fonts, esp. as U.S. printers wouldn't take them. So I did a number of conversions of ttfs to Type 1 PostScript, & had only a very few issues. The instances I remember were when the original TrueType font had errors apparently forgiven by most rips, but not by (my, anyway) font editing program. I would not expect to find such errors from a major publisher such as Adobe. In any case, everyone now seems to accept TTFs, so perhaps the caution should be to not convert from one to the other -- though again, I've had no trouble. I find the "hundreds of times" number curious.

Finally, as I said, I'm not a programmer, but I believe you can add an open type wrapper without affecting the font glyph data at all, no?


The latter is like the early days of PostScript Type 1 fonts, where with Windows anyway, you added kerning data to the afm file. You didn't need to see the font in a font editor at all. Just run out your pairs, write your kerning table, and test the results by running the pairs out again. Refine kerning as needed. This is how we had to work with the Linotype 202 (or the equivalent Monotype) fonts BTW, you couldn't "bring them up" in a font editor at all.

Opentype just adds more tables.

Delete's picture

Trinite is a lovely font, but not a general workhouse font like Documenta, Minion, Dante, Dolly, Vertigris, Lyon Text, Collis, Elzevir, Albertina, or Baskerville 10. It is quirky, like Quadraat, but prettier. It is probably overpriced, but many of the Dutch types are pretty expensive. (and yes, it does not have ligatures, but would benefit from an open type version such as was developed for Lexicon for old style figures, small caps, foreign language options etc.) I have found several instances where trinite is the perfect font. Many of the Adobe (and HF&J) fonts are very good, but I end up seldom using them because there is something else a little better. The ones I use (like Jenson, Bickham script) are not general use fonts.
Trinite Example photo TriniteExample_zpse23321f9.jpg
I am not convinced that TTF/OTF format is a lifetime investment. I remember when bitmap fonts came out that were "high quality", followed by postscript fonts, then multimaster fonts (which were "the thing" if printers could figure out how to use them), then truetype (initially inferior, because cheap fonts came out in that format while the quality fonts were still postscript), then now opentype with optical variants and display and web options, etc. As of January 2013, there are still programs which work much better with standard true type, postscript, or open type. Not all use is with InDesign or Illustrator. There is AutoCAD, help based systems, Maya, Softimage, Media Composer, etc. - and each have their favorite formats. If one wants to convert fonts to outlines and create distortions, the old style postscript fonts are still great. The bottom line, is that it would be good to have upgrade options and reasonable regulations for use (embedded fonts in pdf, etc.) for whatever the next generation of use. I would not be surprised if changes may be developed in font specifications for better epub options in the future.

BTW: here is a response from that is good: "We don't double charge our clients for an OT update. The money previously invested in PS T1 / TTF fonts, will be refunded on the OT fonts. Repurchasing sucks. Never pay twice for the same thing, no?"

A bad response from Fontfont: "Since OpenType is a completely new, different format, the fonts have been revised and the new packages don't really match the old ones, we do not offer an upgrade path"

charles ellertson's picture

Well, you could give this a try. Nothing to lose...

Delete's picture

Thank you very much! Happy New Year.

Thomas Phinney's picture

Before I go off and disagree with Charles on a bunch of things, let me say that I think that Isle of Gough is correct that we shouldn't think of fonts as a buy-it-and-forget-it item any more. Even if OTF/TTF are the end of the line for another decade or more, people live longer than that, and moreover the more complex fonts become, the more they have bugs that need fixing.

I remember back when I started at Adobe in the waning days of PostScript Type 1 fonts (1997), our objective at ship time was pretty much to ship a font that was literally bug free. We hoped to never need to update the font file after it went out the door. Although difficult, one could actually strive for that, and achieve it or get close.

Today, the vastly more complex systems and fonts we have in OpenType make such a goal absurd. Even if there are no known bugs in a font going out the door, any high end font *will* have bugs. If somehow magically it does not, changing ideas of best practices or new enhancements to specs will make updates desirable. It could be "Hey, now we can add names to those stylistic sets!" or "Hey, we need to rebuild this because the OpenType sanitizer rejects it!" or "We need to change the vertical metrics for Web fonts vs desktop fonts!"

So, high end fonts will need fairly regular updates these days. That's life.

Thomas Phinney's picture

As to some of Charles E's comments:

> Decompiling & recompiling is not a black art, successful only with the appropriate chants and the addition of an eye of newt.

Actually... it pretty much is. At least, that's my conclusion from the evidence. I have found bugs in EVERY tool I have ever used in the last few years to attempt to "round trip" fonts from compiled form to change something isolated and then recompile the font, whether it is FontLab, OTMaster, or ttx. FontLab does not even try to do clean round-tripping, and nobody should expect it. The other tools do, and usually succeed—but not always.

Additionally, at both Adobe and Extensis, I have regularly seen problems created by botched third-party conversions of fonts. Not as common as problems simply created by poorly-made fonts, but not all that unusual, either.

> That's interesting, too. Though I wouldn't take adding an otf wrapper around a Type 1 font as a *conversion.* Nor can I remember any issues with "converting" a Type 1 PostScript font from Mac to PC format, or vice versa.

In all these cases there is data that must be invented from whole cloth. The conversion tool has to guess at reasonable values for this data. It won't necessarily get the same or compatible results as what the foundry would have made. It is platform-specific data that would be preserved in a creation/conversion process run by an intelligent foundry (as at Adobe), but simply won't be present in a single-platform font from the "other" platform.

For example, the Windows Type 1 fonts are generally likely to be style-linked, so they will not have Mac-like or OpenType-savvy menu names. The user must hope that other non-critical name fields are well-formed, or add the other menu names manually.

Kerning is a problem because the kerning in the original platform-specific fonts is restricted to the standard character set for that platform. So even though your Windows Type 1 font may have fi and fl ligatures (Adobe's all did), they will not be kerned in the Windows version, nor in any font derived from it by usual processes.

For older fonts, they are also likely to be missing some useful characters, such as the euro. Newer foundry fonts will have at least that added. (In converting their library to OpenType, Adobe also added 14 font-specific symbol characters to each font that were simply not present in the Type 1 versions.)

That's just off the top of my head. If I think about it for a while I could come up with more examples of issues. But suffice it to say that I am thoroughly in agreement with Ralf. Despite not even being in the desktop font biz any more, either (no "revenue stream to protect").

Oh, and besides which, ad hominem arguments suck. Even if somebody is arguing a point that happens to be in their best interests, that doesn't make them wrong.

Delete's picture

Thank you Mr. Phinney for your comments. I hope you will convince the rest of Adobe (and be influential with other companies) about the value to us users of having an upgrade path for typeface packages. I realize it is difficult to prove ownership unless the company registers the fonts at point of sale. I know I am much more loyal to companies that provide upgrade paths and support than those who limit these options to save money.

Delete's picture

Is the development of web specific fonts a sign that TTF/OTF is not a ten year investment?

charles ellertson's picture

Thomas -- the only chants I know can also be categorized as obscenities, profanities, and vulgarities. Until now, I thought that when I hurled them at the computer, I was just venting ;-)

As to the rest, I guess we'll just have to disagree. But there is this difference: I'm a user. Most of us have limited needs. Mine is putting ink on paper with a high-resolution offset press. The font software does have to pass through some other software -- a layout program, "conversion" to PDF, preflight check, the printer's rip, platemaker, etc. but as long as the printed words look the same, I call the fonts the same.

That's a far different requirement than a font publisher has, I'll agree. And for all I know, when you round-trip a font, the program, in either code or binary, may look different. And that can and probably should be worrisome for a font publisher. A user's needs are far more focused -- But that's what IsleofGough is, a user.


(BTW, I used what I called "database" fonts in the 8-bit days, long before OpenType was a gleam in someone's eye. As we used TeX, we'd just write an encoding vector for whatever 256 characters we wanted. But, for example all the roman glyphs & all the kerning was in one roman font. When Adobe came out with the OT Pro series, I just wrote an OT wrapper around my "data base" type 1 fonts. Reason? Frequently, I still had more glyphs than were in the OT pro font, and I preferred my kerning. I bring this up to point out this isn't an idea that just occurred to me, I've been doing it for almost 20 years now.)

BYW II: Adobe Jenson's kerning, as published, is still gefuched, just look at the string


e.g., all throughout Ambrose (fils)'s book The Pacific. Sadly, the word "of" followed by a word in quote marks is pretty common... I'd call that an unfixed bug, and I did mention it to the young Mr. Slye awhile back...

Typography.Guru's picture

Is the development of web specific fonts a sign that TTF/OTF is not a ten year investment?

Webfonts are just wrappers for the regular font format(s). And that's the point! All current font format variants (TTF/OTF/WOFF/EOT) are internally more or less one format – THE format of today. There will probably new developments in the future – like multi-color fonts maybe. But I am certain those features will only be added to the OpenType spec, so no format change like the one from Type1 to OpenType will happen again any time soon and require you to purchase a completely new license for a font you might already have.

Delete's picture

Thank you for the explanation on web fonts. Looking over the fonts I own that are in opentype, about half are postscript opentype. I am hoping these will not become dinasaurs, as they would be expensive to purchase again.

It makes one appreciate foundries like Underware.

Delete's picture

I just wanted to confirm that after talking with Adobe store this morning, that Adobe does not have a font upgrade path (specific issue was with Adobe Garamond Premiere Pro otf).

Jens Kutilek's picture

Just to add some anecdotal evidence to the disagreement over whether modifying existing fonts was a black art or not ... in the last few days I noticed several threads where people were asking for help because the fonts didn’t work anymore after they tried to modify them:

charles ellertson's picture

With all due respect Jens, these don't indicate the black art of type design, or really, making an Opentype font. They're simply questions of someone very new to writing OT features.

What bothers me about the the notions in this thread is the model seems to be that everything can be segmented, that each person can do one task and that's all that's needed from them. The author writes the text. The editor edits it. The book designer gives specifications, and the typesetter sets up styles -- fills out a chart according to the book designers specifications -- then simply flows in the text.

Maybe that's typesetting, but it isn't composition. Easy examples. There is an eng in the text, but no eng in the font. What to do? Set it in Ariel? By the way, proof is due in 1 week. It isn't that hard to make up an eng from an n and a piece of the j, or the f, depending. Or a schwa needed. Just double flip the e & reset the sidebearings. In the font, so it can be properly coded, so the text file is right.

"Oh," the type designer says. "I could have made better ones." But in fact, even if the could have, they didn't make any at all. Mine are better than mixing Times Roman or Ariel in with with the fonts used for the text.

Good editors have to know about (text) design, and a bit about type and composition. Good designers have to know about editorial styles and composition. And good compositors have to be able to work with type, have to understand both editorial and (text) design compromises. Been going on since the 1450s. I can come up with lots of examples, from hand-set foundry type, from Monotype, Photocomp, PostScript, and now OpenType, but I think this has gone on long enough. It is sheer arrogance for type designers to think "only they" can do the job. More than arrogance, because they're wrong, often enough, doubly wrong.

Typography.Guru's picture

I say it again: If YOU can do font modifications and are fine with the results (and all possible side-effects), then great! We can't argue with that.
But we can tell from our experience that font modifications will likely cause problems for many users, and we can also easily explain why this happens from a technological standpoint. There is also no arguing about that. It's not a matter of opinion. There is nothing for you to disagree.

Thomas Phinney's picture

What Ralf said. :)

timd's picture

When Korolev was updated, Myfonts sent me an email with a free download to replace the original – no cost at all. Of course I haven’t used it since the update but I thought it was the kind of customer service more foundries should consider.


Typography.Guru's picture

Just as a clarification: MyFonts is a large reseller of hundreds of foundries, who will by default notify customers of any updates. Since MyFonts is just a reseller, they don't make prices and don't decide if an upgrade is free or not. They provide the technical option of an email notice, but everything else is decided and provided by the foundries themselves.

Jens Kutilek's picture

Charles, I think the only thing we disagree about is how complicated it is to modify an existing font without breaking something.

I completely agree that everybody should be allowed to modify fonts for their own use if they feel they are able to do it.

Laurens's picture

I stumbled upon this thread while searching if there is a newer version of Priva Pro that might possibly fix an issue with some Swedish characters. Is there a way to see which the current version number of a font is? I can check the version numbers of the fonts I have in the OS. Is there a shop or other resource that lists which the most recent versions are?

charles ellertson's picture

Jens, I'm sure part of that comes from being "professional," too. I've been known to write some ugly code, but the printer's rips don't complain and it gets the ink on paper. For the OT features, I throw out most of the foundry code and just start over. What I use is simple, if not efficient.

I imagine you, like my business partner (who does have programming skills), would look at some of my features code and utter some obscenities or vulgarities. We have an agreement -- he stays away from fonts. Not ideal, but cuts down on the arguing, which can waste A LOT of time. 30-some years ago, we spent 4 hours arguing over what was the best way to get a microphone line across the balcony of a large chapel...and so learned to focus a bit, because after 4 hours, there was still no line across the balcony...

* * *
And of course, I'm just as bad when something in the type offends me...

Thomas Phinney's picture


There are ways to look at the version info in a font. But regardless of how old your font is, if you have a bug, I suggest you just contact DSType directly, describe the issue, and ask if the most recent version of the font fixes it, or if they can fix the problem with a new update. (As for how to check date/version, are you on Mac, or Windows? Do you have a font management app, or a font editor, or are you reliant on the OS for font info?)

timd's picture

Ralf, I was aware of that, I was applauding Rian Hughes, who presumably gave the instruction.


Laurens's picture


As I already stated I know how to check which revision a particular font has in my OS.
What I fail to find is some kind of a site or other resource that tells me which the most recent revision of any font is that is currently being sold. For software it is easy to discover which the latest update of InDesign is. But how do you find out which the most recent version number of Bifur, Priva Pro or Univers is?

Té Rowan's picture

Seems the only way is to ask the foundry. After all, if they don't know, nobody knows!

Syndicate content Syndicate content