2 ms·

The legal department can give advice, but they can't stop the company from using it anyway. So just ask the legal department: Realistically, how likely are we t

by mcbits 8y ago

The legal department can give advice, but they can't stop the company from using it anyway. So just ask the legal department: Realistically, how likely are we to be sued if we use this font according to the most obvious interpretation of the license as written? (Free to use, but don't take credit for it.) Listen to the answer, and then apply common sense.

gamblor956 8y ago
It's policy at most companies to terminate employees who act against the express advice of legal department on legal matters (especially where a low-value asset like a font can trigger high-risk legal exposure). In many companies, that would even be considered a for-cause termination, meaning no severance. So think about it this way: is it worth risking your career over a silly font? Because common sense in this situation is to just do what Legal says.
- mcbits 8y ago
  So don't use it. Just be clear that it's a self-imposed limitation based on irrational fantasies and there is little to no actual risk. Back on Earth, the font's creators clearly gave permission to use it under one simple condition that would be hard to violate. There's more risk of being sued for using GPL software because it's easier to violate. If the font's creators do turn out to be loonies and start filing frivolous lawsuits, that's an ever-present (small) risk regardless of the license.
  - netsharc 8y ago
    > Just be clear that it's a self-imposed limitation based on irrational fantasies What an interesting problem, legalism as religion.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    But they didn't give "clearly give permission" (in the original release). Because they also said "don't be a dick about it" which is an incredibly vague restriction. Is that limited to claiming ownership of the font? Does that include using it in military applications? What about criminals? At any rate, this point is moot since they re-licensed it under a real license by the time I responded to your comment.
    - mcbits 8y ago
      It was already just as "real" as any license, and I'm disappointed that they caved to the ridiculous people, but it just validates my point that they were in fact giving permission to use it. The new license is more restrictive about sales.

by mcbits 8y ago

gamblor956 8y ago

It's policy at most companies to terminate employees who act against the express advice of legal department on legal matters (especially where a low-value asset like a font can trigger high-risk legal exposure). In many companies, that would even be considered a for-cause termination, meaning no severance. So think about it this way: is it worth risking your career over a silly font? Because common sense in this situation is to just do what Legal says.

mcbits 8y ago
So don't use it. Just be clear that it's a self-imposed limitation based on irrational fantasies and there is little to no actual risk. Back on Earth, the font's creators clearly gave permission to use it under one simple condition that would be hard to violate. There's more risk of being sued for using GPL software because it's easier to violate. If the font's creators do turn out to be loonies and start filing frivolous lawsuits, that's an ever-present (small) risk regardless of the license.
- netsharc 8y ago
  > Just be clear that it's a self-imposed limitation based on irrational fantasies What an interesting problem, legalism as religion.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  But they didn't give "clearly give permission" (in the original release). Because they also said "don't be a dick about it" which is an incredibly vague restriction. Is that limited to claiming ownership of the font? Does that include using it in military applications? What about criminals? At any rate, this point is moot since they re-licensed it under a real license by the time I responded to your comment.
  - mcbits 8y ago
    It was already just as "real" as any license, and I'm disappointed that they caved to the ridiculous people, but it just validates my point that they were in fact giving permission to use it. The new license is more restrictive about sales.