Comments on: Why Should Fonts Be Like Wikipedia? http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/ design & software freedom Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:19:18 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Crossland http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/comment-page-1/#comment-14571 David Crossland Thu, 29 May 2008 20:35:38 +0000 http://understandinglimited.com/?p=459#comment-14571 <p><a href="http://james.lab6.com/2008/05/29/why-fonts-should-be-like-wikipedia" rel="nofollow">Good old James</a> :-)</p> Good old James :-)

]]> By: David Crossland http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/comment-page-1/#comment-14563 David Crossland Tue, 27 May 2008 16:13:20 +0000 http://understandinglimited.com/?p=459#comment-14563 <p>Another good post on the Scribus list on this thread: "You seem to be implying that photos are therefore easy to make and good photos are not really all that valuable as they took so little time to produce. If that's not what you meant, my apologies but that's the way it sounded to me. It's a common enough assumption but it's fairly disingenuous. Would you say someone running a 100 meter dash in 9 seconds would not be an amazing feat because it only took him 9 seconds. A good photographer spends a lot of time honing his or her skill and it's the whole package that is going into pricing. Just because each individual photograph doesn't take a long time to produce doesn't mean anyone could produce it (in that or any amount of time). Just sticking up for photographers."</p> Another good post on the Scribus list on this thread: “You seem to be implying that photos are therefore easy to make and good
photos are not really all that valuable as they took so little time to
produce. If that’s not what you meant, my apologies but that’s the way
it sounded to me. It’s a common enough assumption but it’s fairly
disingenuous. Would you say someone running a 100 meter dash in 9
seconds would not be an amazing feat because it only took him 9 seconds.
A good photographer spends a lot of time honing his or her skill and
it’s the whole package that is going into pricing. Just because each
individual photograph doesn’t take a long time to produce doesn’t mean
anyone could produce it (in that or any amount of time). Just sticking
up for photographers.”

]]> By: David Crossland http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/comment-page-1/#comment-14562 David Crossland Tue, 27 May 2008 11:51:02 +0000 http://understandinglimited.com/?p=459#comment-14562 <p>Photos are typically decorative works, but can sometimes be functional, and in that case being able to edit them is important - in the same way that it is important for software, encyclopedias, and typeface designs to be changed by their users.</p> <p>Type designs do not present a unique problem; in what way are they unique? :-)</p> Photos are typically decorative works, but can sometimes be functional, and in that case being able to edit them is important - in the same way that it is important for software, encyclopedias, and typeface designs to be changed by their users.

Type designs do not present a unique problem; in what way are they unique? :-)

]]> By: Brook Elgie http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/comment-page-1/#comment-14561 Brook Elgie Tue, 27 May 2008 11:41:20 +0000 http://understandinglimited.com/?p=459#comment-14561 <p>Saying that “photos take only seconds or minutes to produce, while fonts take months or years” is a patronising and simplistic way of making a value judgement about these respective activities. It says nothing about how the products of these activities should be licensed.</p> <p>It is as valid to say that fonts should be licensed like photos, as it is to say that fonts should be licensed like wikipedia; ie, not valid either way.</p> <p>This desperation to find a suitable analogy so fonts can fit into the world of free content and software has yielded nothing except the need to recognise that fonts present a unique problem. Fonts aren't wholly like photos, nor are they like wikipedia. If they were, they would be those things. Fonts are like fonts and the problem that presents for licensing is unique to that realm.</p> Saying that “photos take only seconds or minutes to produce, while fonts take months or years” is a patronising and simplistic way of making a value judgement about these respective activities. It says nothing about how the products of these activities should be licensed.

It is as valid to say that fonts should be licensed like photos, as it is to say that fonts should be licensed like wikipedia; ie, not valid either way.

This desperation to find a suitable analogy so fonts can fit into the world of free content and software has yielded nothing except the need to recognise that fonts present a unique problem. Fonts aren’t wholly like photos, nor are they like wikipedia. If they were, they would be those things. Fonts are like fonts and the problem that presents for licensing is unique to that realm.

]]> By: David Crossland http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/comment-page-1/#comment-14560 David Crossland Mon, 26 May 2008 15:17:41 +0000 http://understandinglimited.com/?p=459#comment-14560 <p>Cool - thanks, I've updated the post. (It used to say Microsoft owned Apple, which is clearly false) Any comments on the actual post though? :-)</p> Cool - thanks, I’ve updated the post. (It used to say Microsoft owned Apple, which is clearly false) Any comments on the actual post though? :-)

]]> By: Bahi http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/comment-page-1/#comment-14559 Bahi Mon, 26 May 2008 14:29:28 +0000 http://understandinglimited.com/?p=459#comment-14559 <p>The current investment is, as far as I know, close to zero. The original documented investment was for $150m of non-voting stock, which was later converted. However, there are rumours that the full amount paid by Microsoft to Apple was somewhat higher, allegedly to reflect the imbalance of IP involved in the patent settlement. (Included in the deal in 1997 was a cross-licensing agreement.) The whole thing is subject to a lot of rumour - for an example, see the article and the comments, complete with requisite bile, at http://justinhartman.com/2007/11/23/microsofts-equity-in-apple - but the upshot is that Microsoft probably owned one or two percent of Apple back in 1997 and sold it some five or six years later.</p> <p>My guess it that Jobs, on returning to Apple and then becoming temporary CEO, thought that Microsoft's investment of a token amount would seem like an important vote of confidence, signalling to the market an end to those disastrous lawsuits. It seemed to do the trick.</p> <p>I seem to remember reading that Jobs, while CEO of NeXT, helped Microsoft defend itself against an earlier lawsuit that Apple subsequently lost.</p> The current investment is, as far as I know, close to zero. The original documented investment was for $150m of non-voting stock, which was later converted. However, there are rumours that the full amount paid by Microsoft to Apple was somewhat higher, allegedly to reflect the imbalance of IP involved in the patent settlement. (Included in the deal in 1997 was a cross-licensing agreement.) The whole thing is subject to a lot of rumour - for an example, see the article and the comments, complete with requisite bile, at http://justinhartman.com/2007/11/23/microsofts-equity-in-apple - but the upshot is that Microsoft probably owned one or two percent of Apple back in 1997 and sold it some five or six years later.

My guess it that Jobs, on returning to Apple and then becoming temporary CEO, thought that Microsoft’s investment of a token amount would seem like an important vote of confidence, signalling to the market an end to those disastrous lawsuits. It seemed to do the trick.

I seem to remember reading that Jobs, while CEO of NeXT, helped Microsoft defend itself against an earlier lawsuit that Apple subsequently lost.

]]> By: David Crossland http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/comment-page-1/#comment-14553 David Crossland Mon, 26 May 2008 11:09:38 +0000 http://understandinglimited.com/?p=459#comment-14553 <p>Didn't they buy like 40% shares back in the day?</p> Didn’t they buy like 40% shares back in the day?

]]> By: Bahi http://understandinglimited.com/2008/05/25/why-free-fonts/comment-page-1/#comment-14552 Bahi Mon, 26 May 2008 11:08:35 +0000 http://understandinglimited.com/?p=459#comment-14552 <p>How is Apple owned by Microsoft?</p> How is Apple owned by Microsoft?

]]>