[OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
impallari at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 23:59:37 PDT 2013
The most important aspect of Libre fonts its not aesthetic, or quality, or
whatever.... it's the LICENSE itself.
Is the fact that anybody can use them without asking permission, having to
pay, or worrying about lawsuits.
In a recent conversation about Libre fonts being used by Adobe Edge and the
RFN, Dave told us something like: "the big companies will not serve the RFN
fonts if they have to ask for permission or sign agreements because of the
administrative burden of managing that licenses."
That's the main advantage of Libre Ftons:
- People using Libre fonts are completely liberated for the administrative
- They are also completely liberated from fear! As they don't have to fear
that they may get sued if the use the font for something not specified in
the license legalese.
They are more "convenient" in a "practical" way.
Working with Libre fonts is EASIER. Users have less administrative job to
do, and less things to worry about.
They also avoid all the process of buying a font: Creating and account,
taking out the credit card, paying, keeping track of the license, etc,
etc... Libre Fonts are just there.. always available and ready to be used,
legally and worry free.
In companies and agencies where there any many departments involved
(accounting, legal, etc) the process is even more complex, and the removal
of all those obstacles is even more appealing.
When people complain about the quality, I think of a few examples:
When Wikipedia started, people also complained about quality.
A few years later, quality improved and was not an issue any more.
When Metal Typefaces replaced the scribes, people complained. Quality was
not good compared scribes.
However, Metal Typefaces replaced the scribes because they where more
in a "practical" way.
It was the same process when the first digital generation of commercial
fonts where made. Quality was not good compared to Metal Typefaces, people
complained (some still complain). However digital fonts replaced metal and
phototype fonts because they where more "convenient" in a "practical" way.
Mankind always tries to make things easier, to remove obstacles, and to get
the job done faster.
Libre fonts are more "convenient" in a "practical" way.
People have other things to do in their daily lives.
So many things to do... so little time.
And Libre Fonts get the job done, faster, easier.
They are not a "technological" advance, like from scribes to metal, or form
metal to digital.
But the effect of the Libre License is comparable.
They have removed obstacles, making life easier for the people who use them.
2013/10/17 <nooalf at aol.com>
> I dont know much about the world uv type design, but I get wut youre
> saying, Vernon. All professionz tend to get fossilized over time. People
> run out uv ideaz, even az they bekum masterz uv their art. They also tend
> to create obstaclez to entry.
> With teknolojyz that are in the early stajez uv development its probably
> even harder for individualz who did the hard work at the beginning to let
> young wippersnapperz bild on their work. I suspect thats why Fontlab iznt
> very good - helps keep 'amatuerz' out.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vernon adams <vern at newtypography.co.uk>
> To: googlefontdirectory-discuss <
> googlefontdirectory-discuss at googlegroups.com>
> Cc: Open Font Library <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 6:53 pm
> Subject: Re: [OpenFontLibrary] [GFD] Tom Phinney on Libre Fonts
> I've sat on this a few days, just to clarify my thoughts a little.
> Browsing the WebInk catalogue, i don't see any evidence of what Thomas's great
> alternative for web fonts could be, and i'm still not sure what he is
> effectively saying, beyond simply penning a biased criticism of a particular
> webfont project. I don't doubt that the products served from WebINk are 'point
> perfect' (hmm i wonder), but apart from that, many of the products seem to exist
> in a vacuum. The standard faces can mostly be also accessed from other providers
> (and i bet that's where users do go! e.g Typekit is waaaay better), and much of
> what is 'original' or exclusive to WebINk seem to be in a stye no-mans land. I
> just don't see any outstanding quality there overall, and i dont see much there
> that i imagine designers get excited about. To me it looks like a product that
> desperately needs a shot of fresh blood, or indeed something even stronger, to
> bring something energising and want-able to the brand. Basic better direction
> would be a good start. Assuming that the 'technical quality' is a given with
> WebInk, then Extensis do have at least one good quality to build on. What they
> need to snap into that regime of technical quality is at the very least some
> desireable, infectious font faces. That's where the hard work starts though;
> creative output can allways be refined and improved technically (engineers can
> do clean up work), but it's wrong-way-round to create the other way. Doing it
> the other way round is less efficient - the end result is likely well crafted
> fonts, but nowhere near enough fonts, and maybe no killer fonts.
> In many ways the Google font project was an audacious one; rule breaking, taking
> chances, and a lot of doing things that 'experts' said you should not, or, could
> not do. That adds up to strategy where 'room for improvement' is built in, it's
> a system of rolling enhancement, improvement, further innovation, in which the
> user is an integral part. Playing a bit of 'what if…?' though, i wonder how a
> project with the same aims and scope would have faired under the management of
> say WebInk. I just dont think it would have happened, or, we would still be
> waiting for it to happen. My hunch is that it would not have had the same wide
> variety of designers involved, nor aimed at the same wide stylistic and user
> coverage. It would probably not have focussed on usage stats, adoption waves,
> and plugging directly into the hub of the other nascent free software
> communities and products, but instead relied upon the 'expertise' of a few the
> same old selected individuals. It would have also been slower, or resistant, to
> try non-expert approaches. I dont think it would have been much of a model.
> One thing i can agree on; i would also love to see more creative people making
> 'better quality' fonts, me included :). My argument with Thomas on this subject
> is that biasing too much toward 'point perfection' and near disregarding the
> actual creative input, is a bad approach; it creates a lesser education, and
> ultimately creates lesser designers. But then i was indoctrinated by the totally
> awesome British Art School sytem of the 70s & 80s :) I think it's better to
> start with the creative impulse, get looking, get making and making, filter out,
> and then head towards refinement and improvement.
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 16:20, Thomas Phinney <tphinney at cal.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > I do criticize Google web fonts, but only saying the exact same things I have
> been saying directly to the two Daves for several years now, in the spirit of
> constructive criticism, because I care about quality. If I was just out to make
> a buck I would not have given that feedback privately and passionately long
> before criticizing publicly.
> > BTW, quality is not about elites vs the masses. Everybody benefits from
> well-crafted fonts, including casual users.
> > I happen to agree with you that there are a lot of well-crafted fonts that are
> stultifyingly boring. But unlike technical quality, aesthetics are a matter of
> opinion, and I wasn't trying to go there.
> > I also happen to think that a lot of creative and aesthetically interesting
> are done by people who don't know how to make decent quality fonts (or perhaps
> know but don't care, in some cases). I would love to see those people learn how
> to make better quality fonts.
> > That's why I joined Crafting Type: I am eager to help teach the basics of type
> design to more people, and to make sure that spacing, point placement and
> various optical compensations are well covered in that discussion.
> > One thing I could have said more clearly in my blog post is that one can get
> passable but not fabulous quality without a lot more work than the amount
> required to make crap. Proper point placement and half-decent spacing and so
> forth are not *that* hard, nor horribly slow once one has the right work habits.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenFontLibrary