[OpenFontLibrary] Commissioned-then-Open Font Model - was: New Ubuntu Font

[Dave Crossland]

On 5 March 2010 21:18, Garrick Van Buren <garrick at kernest.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>> On 5 March 2010 16:32, Garrick Van Buren <garrick at kernest.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> commissioned-then-openly-licensed fonts will be the primary model
>>> for the majority of font development moving forward.
>>
>> Do you mean the majority of ALL font development, or the majority of
>> libre font development?
>
> This goes back to our podcast conversation [1] and how font designers can make a living in the world of web fonts.
>
> Yes, ALL font development.

Wow, that's quite a statement, then :-)

> This comes from my experience w/ Kernest these the past 9 months

Please tell us more about this :-)

> and the observation that the bulk of the software libraries I work
> with daily - in both a professional & casual capacity - are open
> sourced. They all originated by either being explicitly commissioned
> (i.e. make library for me) - or implicitly commissioned (i.e. developed at & for the day job).

I think that many authors of software libraries - programmers -
understand how they can make more money with free software than with
proprietary software, which is why so much free software library code
exists. This is less true of applications programmers, and even less
true of type designers.

That is, I do not see the authors of typefaces - type designers -
understand how they can make more money with libre fonts than with
proprietary fonts, which is why we have so few.

> I suspect the bulk of the fonts most people see on computers
> (the ones that came with their OS) were commissioned by the OS vendor.
> Most of these are not openly licensed (as you know - many are). I don't
> know if Matthew Carter still gets paid every time another copy of Windows
> is sold - but I suspect not. So, I'm not sure what Microsoft would lose by
> openly licensing Georgia - they've already paid for it. :)

OS Vendors rarely commission fonts; that is not in my list of the 3
most common ways of funding proprietary font development:

1. Private, original branding work (Dalton Maag)
2. Public, original type design (typography.com)
3. Public, unoriginal type design (myfonts.com)

1 is fine as far as it goes, since it respects the users' freedom -
all one of them, since the font is used by one (legal) person and that
is its reason for existing.

2 and 3 require per-user fees.

> Similarly, as long as my invoices are paid - I don't care how my clients license the work I do for them.

Why do your clients allow the work they pay for to be published for
their competitors to use?

> Is this helpful?

I hope so :-)

-- 
Regards,
Dave

Each year in UK schools more than 1 in 6 children
leave school unable to read, write or add up [1]. Why?
[1: http://ahed.pbwiki.com/Anomaly+Figures ]