[Openfontlibrary] clarification...

[Rob Myers]

Gustavo Ferreira wrote:

> first of all, i think the ofl is too permissive for my business model. i am an independent designer, as 
> most type-designers are; i don't have salaries paid by any company, and i am definitely not rich. i am 
> trying to set up a type business, in which the income is typically generated by commercial font 
> licenses and by doing custom font and lettering jobs.

One of the things that would interest me would be to know how much money 
   people do make off of font licenses if they are an independent.

> i have spent the last 3 years in europe studying, but i am from brazil, i'm in rio right now. there is 
> not type market here; designers, even big design studios and advertising agencies, simply don't buy 
> fonts. there is also no culture of licensing software, some companies do so only because they fear 
> being sued (this is happening more and more). this is a very complex issue, because the prices 
> charged my ms, adobe etc are very high, while the value of design here is lower than in central 
> countries. most design businesses would break if they would pay for (all) licenses.

One of the virtues claimed for "Open Source" development is that it 
reduces prices.

This affects producers as well as consumers.

> i think the attitude of using illegal copies is bad for us, because by doing so people are contributing 
> to make ms/adobe the standard tools/environment, and not contributing to a movement that 
> presents an alternative: free-software. this is where my interest for free software comes from: it 
> enables people to get work done without the unsustainable costs practised by ms/adobe/etc AND 
> respects copyright.

There is a contradiction in your business model, though. You cannot use 
Open Source to reduce your costs and avoid the value of your own work 
being reduced by Open Source.

> copyright is very important for me as a (type-)designer. without respect for copyrights, there is no 
> type-business; if people use my work and i don't get anything for it, my business breaks. when i try 
> to talk about copyright and licensing here, people come with the argument "but i can't afford that, 
> poor me blablabla"... free-software gives me a contra-argument, because i can say "ok, if you can't 
> afford that, use free-software, because then you are supporting the people who want to give you an 
> option and are respecting copyright, this thing which makes my business possible." i want to say the 
> same things in relation to fonts: "please don't use illegal copies, because by doing that you are 
> helping to create a culture of copyright-disrespect in which my business is not possible; there are 
> good free fonts around, if you can't pay for fonts, use them, here are they."
> 
> going back to the business of type and the ofl. i would like to offer some of my fonts under a free 
> license, so those people who cannot afford paying for fonts will have a legal option. by doing that i 
> hope to: 1. make people aware that there is this thing called "font-license", 2. show that the designer 
> is not a greedy motherfucker*, he is actually a very friendly and generous person giving some of his 
> hard work for free, 3. have people using my fonts and liking it, maybe so much that they will 
> consider paying for their full versions.
>
> * this is a very important point: sometimes i feel offended by the way people who charge for their 
> work are referred to, as 'unethical', 'unsustainable' etc. i care very much about ethics (otherwise i 
> wouldn't be here), but my business needs to be financially sustainable, i have bills to pay. i spend a 
> lot of time trying to bring those two dimensions, ethic and economy, together. so please don't treat 
> me as i would be egoist and greedy, this makes me very sad.

There is nothing wrong with charging for labour, and nobody ever claims 
that charging for your labour is unethical.

> as i was saying, the ofl is too permissive for me. the development costs for the sil or the gfs fonts are 
> paid, this is why they can allow modification, redistribution, selling etc. the designers who worked on 
> these fonts have been compensated through their salaries. but this is not the case of independent 
> designers: they invest months or years of work and need to get this work paid back later, through 
> commercial licensing or custom jobs.

If however that individual sunk a few days into a project and got 
hundreds of days worth of work back they would not need paying quite so 
much. This is the promise of Open Source.

> the licensing terms for my fonts would be similar to those from the exljbris guy: 1. you can use the 
> fonts for commercial work, but please cite my name and my foundry's url; 2. you are not allowed to 
> modify the fonts, if you have a wish get in touch with me and i can do it for you, but i will charge you 
> for that; 3. you are not allowed to sell my fonts! why should i allow that?! this is my work and i need 
> this income to continue running my business, otherwise it will break.

1. This is an "advertising clause" and makes your font unusable for 
business cards for example. It also interferes with the layout of 
designs and is generally burdensome.

2. This is an unreasonable restriction. What happens if you cannot 
modify the font to a design deadline? What happens if people want the 
font in a format you cannot provide? What happens when you are dead and 
people want to use your font?

3. If your font can be freely redistributed there is no need to sell it 
so it is unlikely that people will do so.

> i am not saying that my fonts could not be bundled with free-software distributions, but i would like 
> to have the final word on that. and i think this is very fair.

This kind of restriction will simply mean that the market will ignore 
your fonts. You will gain neither exposure nor profit from this.

> hmm, i think it's not clear for the users that the project has not been lauched - after all there is a url 
> with a website and fonts. and i think users, without knowing that, get a very bad impression of 
> openfontlibrary.org.

As Jon says, do help to improve this practically.

> when i say users i think mainly of graphic designers, the users of fonts. they give a lot of value to 
> design, after all it is their business. graphic designers are used with looking at fonts in well-designed 
> websites - take a look at fontfont, linotype, monotype, ourtype, veer, emigre etc etc.

Designers are not the only users of fonts. This is like saying that 
authors are the users of books. Prepress wranglers, window system code, 
and anyone who looks at a font is a "user".

> another group of users of the open font library website is type-designers. most type-designers i 
> know don't have the knowledge/energy/wish to set up their own foundry, they would rather put their 
> fonts in some foundry's catalogue. sometimes they choose a foundry that gives them lower rates, but 
> which has a stronger brand. they want to be able to say "i have designed this font, it's (for ex:) in the 
> FontFont catalogue". even if they don't get much money with it, to be in the FontFont catalogue is a 
> sign of quality, your fonts are seen together with the work of great type-designers like martin 
> majoor, fred smeijers, erik spiekermann etc etc. if they take you, this means you are good.

If these people wish to use their fonts to build their reputation so 
they can get more work, they will benefit the more their fonts are used. 
Making the fonts Free, so they can be used by the widest number of 
people, will build their reputation more than trying to limit their use.

> the lack of design in the openfontlibrary website and the lack of design thinking in the discussions 
> around the openfontlibrary makes me think that i will never want to have my fonts associated with 
> this project. it's simply not good for my image, for the communication of my work. i think every 
> type-designer would feel the same.
> 
> but then we need to define what is a type-designer. not everybody who makes a font is a type-
> designer!!! making high-quality fonts demands a lot of studying and a lot of work. ***A LOT***, i 
> cannot emphasize that enough. type-design is a very complex field which goes in all directions, 
> culture, language, history, technology, art, communication, business, law. i have been studying type-
> design for more than 5 years now, and i haven't released any font yet. ok, this is maybe too much, i 
> suffer from cronic perfectionism :-) (but which good type-designers don't?), and i have done other 
> things during this time... but i still think this is a valid reference.

This is a very good point. A font family is a massive undertaking, and 
good type design (rather than just grunge font production) is very hard 
work.

> i think firefox is a good reference for us to talk about the value of good design. i think firefox ows 
> much of it's success and penetration in the public of general users to it's well-designed brand. i bet 
> the firefox logo was designed by highly skilled professionals, who were well-paid for that, the same 
> with ff's communciation strategy. (?) 

OK, so how do we go about getting the money to pay for the production of 
high quality fonts?

> i think the biggest problem to fix in the openfontlibrary at the moment is the lack of design thinking, 
> and the lack of expression of designers' and type-designers' points-of-view. i sincerely hope this 
> long email helps a bit.
> 
> but really, i am involved in other projects right now, working very hard to get a living out of type-
> design (preparing a workshop and an article, trying to get custom jobs, working on my fonts etc), so 
> i don't know how much time i will be able to spend here. it also depends on believing that it's worth 
> do dedicate time to this effort. i still do... :-)

You can address the latter by addressing the former. Make ofl.org shine 
and people will want sites like it. ;-)

- Rob.