6 ms·

>"LICENSING Feel free to use this typeface on your website, print, startup or organisation. But don’t be a jerk and distribute or sell the typeface as if it was

>"LICENSING Feel free to use this typeface on your website, print, startup or organisation. But don’t be a jerk and distribute or sell the typeface as if it was your own. A link back to this site from your website would be really much appreciated! And let us know if you use this typeface for a project you think we should know about." this is not a license, people, please just stick the CC license of your choice on it or something.

mcbits 8y ago
It's a license, just not a very tightly worded one. "I was not being a jerk AND distributing ..." But the intent is clear enough.
- rickycook 8y ago
  and at least when it comes to contracts, ambiguity goes in favour of the party that didn’t write it afaik? so it’s a VERY permissible license if that holds
  - gpvos 8y ago
    Yes, as long as you're not a jerk while you do it, you're fine. I'm curious how a judge will determine whether or not you are one.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> this is not a license Yes, it is: express permission from the rights holder to do something covered by their exclusive rights is a license. The wording is casual, but that doesn't make it not a license.
- csours 8y ago
  It's not a license recognized my companies licensing software, so it's not a license to me.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    It looks like your software isn't very good at recognising licenses.
    - AckSyn 8y ago
      it looks like bureaucratic bs gets in the way as usual
    - ada1981 8y ago
      In addition, it looks like his cortex isn’t very good at parsing reality from the output of a piece of software.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - dylan604 8y ago
        Why is this not in the spirit of HN? It’s not condescending, but yet still delivers that ‘je ne sais quoi‘[0] level of comment. [0] I had to duck it to get the correct spelling
      - dang 8y ago
        Uncivil comments will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    That's a defect of your software (and, perhaps more, your company's decision to use software as a source of truth on what is a license, rather than a tool for tracking licenses that deals with real-world licensing), not the license.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      You're both correct. It's a license, but it's not a License. Legal departments don't want to go through the hassle of trying to keep track of hundreds of different licenses for relatively small things like fonts, so they require those sorts of resources to come with Standardized Licenses like CC or BSD.
bhhaskin 8y ago
I agree, the license is a nonstarter. Might be okay for a personal project, but would avoid for anything else.
mort96 8y ago
Wow, I'm afraid of what "let us know if you use this typeface for a project you think we should know about." means if interpreted as legalese.
fermienrico 8y ago
Also, why even mention startups? Startup is such a buzzword that everyone wants to cash in on. They could have just simply said “Please feel free to use for personal or commercial use. For full license details see this link: license.txt”
- ada1981 8y ago
  They could have said a lot of things. Near infinite actually.
- paulcole 8y ago
  Really cashing in with that free font.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
btown 8y ago
In this case, though, it's likely the creators would be more than receptive to giving you a legitimate CC-BY license if you ask. They're likely just not familiar with the CC-BY details. Rather than shaming their work for it, let's enjoy it with the understanding that there are humans in the loop with the flexibility to offer bespoke licensing, and licensing will be sorted out if it needs to be.
- Palomides 8y ago
  my comment was mostly intended for HN readers, who may also be likely to release small projects of their own in the future; I strongly feel anyone making works subject to copyright needs a basic understanding of licensing. Reading up on this stuff only takes a few hours, and a work released under a standard license makes things nice for both the creator and the user.
- ghaff 8y ago
  People are either not going to care because they don’t really care what license, open source or otherwise, it’s under. Or they’ll simply drop it like a hot potato because it’s got a weird license. To a first or second degree no one will contact them to see if it’s ok for some specific application.
- fermienrico 8y ago
  This is not excusable when you're putting out the work and claiming it to be free to use and later some chap uses it, they get sued because the wording was vague. There is some level of professionalism and ethics that is required to avoid nasty situations. Criticism of their wording, lack of license and the need for adopting existing licenses (don't roll your own license if possible) is valid. "Rather than shaming their work for it,.." - No one is shaming their work. We are talking about the licensing terms. I love the font concept and I think its brilliant.
  - mcbits 8y ago
    The creators are obviously not interested in suing some chap for using the font unless he claims it's his own font. And even then, the poorly worded license would make suing harder, not easier. People should be able to share their work under common-sense terms without being sucked into Kafka's swirling cesspool of legalese and bureaucracy. The demonic inhabitants of that dimension can just... choose not to use it.
gmiller123456 8y ago
It certainly does count as a license, just very ambiguous which could scare off some people who would use it. So, yes, it would still be a lot better to actually specify one of the more commonly used licenses.
mortenjorck 8y ago
There is a general consensus in the open-source type community around the SIL Open Font License: https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id... It’s what most of the fonts on Google Fonts, including such widely-used families as Adobe’s Source Sans Pro and Google’s own Roboto family, are licensed under, and something I imagine the creators of Optician Sans would be comfortable with.
Digital-Citizen 8y ago
It's a nonfree license (which alone is sufficient to make me look elsewhere for functional replacements); the license disallows commercial redistribution and contains no language that permits modification. This license is also sufficiently unclear that I'm not sure what rights exist for licensees. With licenses that have been reviewed (such as the reviews on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts ) I can find amenable free software licenses.
simens 8y ago
You're totally right. It's unclear. And that's way I've decided to release this under the SIL Open Font Licence instead. Website is updated.
- Palomides 8y ago
  thanks! no hard feelings, I really like the font.

mcbits 8y ago

It's a license, just not a very tightly worded one. "I was not being a jerk AND distributing ..." But the intent is clear enough.

rickycook 8y ago
and at least when it comes to contracts, ambiguity goes in favour of the party that didn’t write it afaik? so it’s a VERY permissible license if that holds
- gpvos 8y ago
  Yes, as long as you're not a jerk while you do it, you're fine. I'm curious how a judge will determine whether or not you are one.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> this is not a license Yes, it is: express permission from the rights holder to do something covered by their exclusive rights is a license. The wording is casual, but that doesn't make it not a license.

csours 8y ago
It's not a license recognized my companies licensing software, so it's not a license to me.
- Angostura 8y ago
  It looks like your software isn't very good at recognising licenses.
  - AckSyn 8y ago
    it looks like bureaucratic bs gets in the way as usual
  - ada1981 8y ago
    In addition, it looks like his cortex isn’t very good at parsing reality from the output of a piece of software.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dylan604 8y ago
      Why is this not in the spirit of HN? It’s not condescending, but yet still delivers that ‘je ne sais quoi‘[0] level of comment. [0] I had to duck it to get the correct spelling
    - dang 8y ago
      Uncivil comments will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  That's a defect of your software (and, perhaps more, your company's decision to use software as a source of truth on what is a license, rather than a tool for tracking licenses that deals with real-world licensing), not the license.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    You're both correct. It's a license, but it's not a License. Legal departments don't want to go through the hassle of trying to keep track of hundreds of different licenses for relatively small things like fonts, so they require those sorts of resources to come with Standardized Licenses like CC or BSD.

bhhaskin 8y ago

I agree, the license is a nonstarter. Might be okay for a personal project, but would avoid for anything else.

mort96 8y ago

Wow, I'm afraid of what "let us know if you use this typeface for a project you think we should know about." means if interpreted as legalese.

fermienrico 8y ago

Also, why even mention startups? Startup is such a buzzword that everyone wants to cash in on. They could have just simply said “Please feel free to use for personal or commercial use. For full license details see this link: license.txt”

ada1981 8y ago
They could have said a lot of things. Near infinite actually.
paulcole 8y ago
Really cashing in with that free font.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

btown 8y ago

In this case, though, it's likely the creators would be more than receptive to giving you a legitimate CC-BY license if you ask. They're likely just not familiar with the CC-BY details. Rather than shaming their work for it, let's enjoy it with the understanding that there are humans in the loop with the flexibility to offer bespoke licensing, and licensing will be sorted out if it needs to be.

Palomides 8y ago
my comment was mostly intended for HN readers, who may also be likely to release small projects of their own in the future; I strongly feel anyone making works subject to copyright needs a basic understanding of licensing. Reading up on this stuff only takes a few hours, and a work released under a standard license makes things nice for both the creator and the user.
ghaff 8y ago
People are either not going to care because they don’t really care what license, open source or otherwise, it’s under. Or they’ll simply drop it like a hot potato because it’s got a weird license. To a first or second degree no one will contact them to see if it’s ok for some specific application.
fermienrico 8y ago
This is not excusable when you're putting out the work and claiming it to be free to use and later some chap uses it, they get sued because the wording was vague. There is some level of professionalism and ethics that is required to avoid nasty situations. Criticism of their wording, lack of license and the need for adopting existing licenses (don't roll your own license if possible) is valid. "Rather than shaming their work for it,.." - No one is shaming their work. We are talking about the licensing terms. I love the font concept and I think its brilliant.
- mcbits 8y ago
  The creators are obviously not interested in suing some chap for using the font unless he claims it's his own font. And even then, the poorly worded license would make suing harder, not easier. People should be able to share their work under common-sense terms without being sucked into Kafka's swirling cesspool of legalese and bureaucracy. The demonic inhabitants of that dimension can just... choose not to use it.

gmiller123456 8y ago

It certainly does count as a license, just very ambiguous which could scare off some people who would use it. So, yes, it would still be a lot better to actually specify one of the more commonly used licenses.

mortenjorck 8y ago

There is a general consensus in the open-source type community around the SIL Open Font License: https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id... It’s what most of the fonts on Google Fonts, including such widely-used families as Adobe’s Source Sans Pro and Google’s own Roboto family, are licensed under, and something I imagine the creators of Optician Sans would be comfortable with.

Digital-Citizen 8y ago

It's a nonfree license (which alone is sufficient to make me look elsewhere for functional replacements); the license disallows commercial redistribution and contains no language that permits modification. This license is also sufficiently unclear that I'm not sure what rights exist for licensees. With licenses that have been reviewed (such as the reviews on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fonts ) I can find amenable free software licenses.

simens 8y ago

You're totally right. It's unclear. And that's way I've decided to release this under the SIL Open Font Licence instead. Website is updated.

Palomides 8y ago
thanks! no hard feelings, I really like the font.