10 ms·

I like this idea, but when I go to the web page... > Download the Font… and change the world! By downloading, installing and/or using the font software, you c

I like this idea, but when I go to the web page... > Download the Font… and change the world! By downloading, installing and/or using the font software, you confirm that you have read and agree to be bound by the terms of this End-User License Agreement... Sigh. I guess I need to read that EULA. Anyway, clicking on that then downloads a pdf rather than a nice link to some web page text. Sigh. So then anyway, trying to open that pdf then fails in the first two readers I tried. Sigh. Why must everything in the world be so hard? Fuck it, never mind. I'll let someone else change the world and wait for widespread adoption for this font to reach me in whatever other ways.

cyral 4y ago
Not sure why it wouldn't open for you, but it opens fine in Chrome on Mac. I thought it would be some ridiculous 50 page legalese but it's actually only 1.5 pages long. it's basically a license similar to what you'd see on a Github repo.
- soco 4y ago
  But why PDF at all? Is there a reason to put the online license in a PDF? Or any other places, like the restaurant menus? is there anybody who wants/needs to print the license or the restaurant menu?
  - bardworx 4y ago
    My guess? They use an agency to service their website and made the license in PDF so the org can change it without incurring additional cost of an update.
    - schwartzworld 4y ago
      To OPs point, a .TXT would work just as well.
      - bardworx 4y ago
        Orgs place a lot of value on control. A TXT, even if better, would be a hard sell. Especially in a 501(c), where optics matter and they are targeting a demographic that usually prefers PDFs.
    - bongobingo1 4y ago
      I think you probably meant to write "can't change it without".
      - bardworx 4y ago
        I was alluding that the Org has the ability to re-upload the pdf in a shared resource without the need of a developer. Vs making the license file a static page that would incur billable hours to update.
        soco 4y ago
        I'm sure you can upload HTML files in shared resources as well. Or not?
  - dual_dingo 4y ago
    I kind of understand it for restaurant menus. Both "real" restaurant and takeway places need to print actual menus and/or flyers, and it's just easier to create a PDF document and upload it to your website than it is to reformat the document to be useful as web page in many cases if you are not well versed in this. Since PDF readers in browsers got decent, this isn't too much of an issue anymore anyway, IMHO.
    - soco 4y ago
      Not an issue indeed if I go to the restaurant table with a computer. Which happens very rarely for me, if ever.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    So organizations that publish documents can store it for legal purposes. A pdf has useful metadata that a text document does not, and can be easily authenticated. If there's a dispute everyone in the legal process understands what a pdf file is.
    - soco 4y ago
      I just wonder how do all other 99% of organizations where the license is a MD file only handle their court cases...
  - solardev 4y ago
    > Or any other places, like the restaurant menus? is there anybody who wants/needs to print the license or the restaurant menu? Web devs are expensive, sadly, and not everyone has the patience to figure out the DIY platforms (Square, SquareSpace, Wix, etc.). It got a bit better during the pandemic when takeout took off. But generally restaurants need to print menus anyway, so it's just easier to upload that design as a PDF than to redo it for the web with labor they don't have, or paying for it with margins they don't have...
    - soco 4y ago
      Or rather, they just take their Word menu and "save as PDF". Although they could also "save as HTML" and replace the same file, right? But then the Word formatting would get messy because it wasn't thought for a web page, so here we are.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    I really hate those restaurants that only have QR codes on the table for menus. A restaurant is for eating and talking, not for messing around with my phone. I avoid those now. During Covid there was a slight point (though it was pretty soon proven that surface transmission was so minor a factor not to warrant such actions). But now we should just go back to normal menus.
    - KMnO4 4y ago
      Heh. I went to a sushi restaurant recently and sat down to an iPad menu. After ordering a few rolls and confirming the order, it was delivered by a robot[0]. After finishing the plates, I returned them to the robot which carried them away. I scanned a QR code on the table which allowed me to pay for everything from my phone. Curiously, I was presented with options to tip 18%, 20%, 30%, or other. I thought about it and tipped accordingly to the effort the waitress put into my experience. Shortly after, the manager came to me (essentially the first point of human interaction) and asked if there was anything wrong that caused me to tip 0%. So yes, I too really hate the direction restaurants are heading in. [0]: https://www.pudurobotics.com/product/detail/pudubot2 https://www.pudurobotics.com/product/detail/pudubot2
      - mjevans 4y ago
        I agree with tipping the robots (for whom service is always the same) N% of their wage; which is still 0. Tips should be _not-legal_ and proper wages for the workers should be _required_.
      - Zak 4y ago
        I'm curious who would get the tip in this scenario. The sushi chef? Ok, I guess. The restaurant owner? I'm going with 0%. The robot? Maybe if it can pass a Turing test.
        verall 4y ago
        > The sushi chef? Yes, and most likely split with other cooks, host/hostess, and waitstaff for people that refuse to use the iPad. > The restaurant owner? Illegal in most states. What an iconoclast, refusing to tip hourly workers...
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    PDF works better when downloaded, sent over e-mail, printed to be used in a court case or hard archives, and has stood the test of time.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    99% of the browsers in use have a built in pdf reader these days.
    - soco 4y ago
      Which is exactly why I'm not complaining that I cannot open it. I'm complaining that the experience sucks - if you have a mobile phone you know what I mean. Unless you go with a computer in the restaurants, of course.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > But why PDF at all? Is there a reason to put the online license in a PDF? Yes. It's so that you have a dated copy. An web-page with the license on it can be retroactively changed.
    - just-ok 4y ago
      Are you distinguishing between a PDF that downloads by default (rather than using an in-browser preview)? Because I’m that case, you could download the license page just the same.
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        > Are you distinguishing between a PDF that downloads by default (rather than using an in-browser preview)? Because I’m that case, you could download the license page just the same. The metadata on the license page does not offer the same guarantees as the metadata in the PDF. The PDF can even be signed; the license page cannot.
    - jeroenhd 4y ago
      You can save web pages as easily as you can save PDFs. You can also edit PDF files with common office tools. The only thing PDF works for is ensuring the rendered copy looks exactly the same everywhere and to add a signature but I don't see the value in those two options for this use case; if anything, this institution should let the user agrnt decide how the text is remdered best and we don't know their public key to validate their signature.
leephillips 4y ago
It downloads rather than opening in your browser because that’s how you’ve configured your browser. For me it opens in the browser (albeit in a new tab). There’s nothing wrong with the PDF, I can open it with all the PDF readers on my machine; it’s a basic v.1.6 PDF file. This is, in fact a “nice link to some web page text”: a page of text served over the web.
- teo_zero 4y ago
  I think linking a PDF is less friendly to users who need Text-to-Speech technology, something the Braille Institute should be sensitive to...
  - Tempest1981 4y ago
    What font does the PDF use? Maybe their Atkinson font?
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      It does indeed :) Kinda funny that you need to read the EULA before downloading it because once you have the PDF on your computer you have already downloaded the font.
  - leephillips 4y ago
    That’s a good point. I have no idea if Text-to-Speech works with PDF.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      It does, and in many cases even better than on most web pages.
einpoklum 4y ago
> By downloading, installing and/or using the font software, you confirm that you have read and agree to be bound by the terms of this End-User License Agreement ... says them. I don't agree and I don't confirm. I can download the font without accepting/consenting to whatever text they put on the web page. And if they're not ok with that - they can limit the availability of the download to only those who accept whatever weird terms they put in that PDF you mentioned. Except they won't do that, since that would harm adoption of their font. More about this kind of "licenses": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
- dannyw 4y ago
  You can clone a GPL-licensed repository without clicking any checkboxes either, but if you violate the license, you can expect to be sued.
- lupire 4y ago
  Shrinkwrap/clickwrap is when the license is displayed after you pay for the product. The concept doesn't and cannot apply to freely downloadable content.
- cyral 4y ago
  > Except they won't do that, since that would harm adoption of their font. Is it because it would harm adoption or because it's infeasible? You can download copyrighted images and use them for your own profit, copy github code with GPL code for your closed-source project, or sign pretty much any contract (say for a car or a house) without actually reading it. Just because there is no safeguard to ensure you are really read what you "agreed" to, doesn't mean it's unenforcable. Moreover, the terms are very simple (1.5 pages) - hardly some "weird terms" to define how you are allowed to redistribute intellectual property.
- npteljes 4y ago
  >And if they're not ok with that Then they can sue. EULAs often state things that don't matter in the jurisdiction of the end user, yes. But copyright is not related to that. If they hold the copyright to the font, then they can set the rules in the license, and if those don't clash with the local laws of your place, then you're liable legally. And yes, they probably won't do that. But that's, again, a different matter, other copyrighted works are also always stolen.
kulhur 4y ago
> Why must everything in the world be so hard? linux user?
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  On FreeBSD with Firefox this PDF opened right away, just saying
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    Loaded for me too, zero issues.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Firefox and chrome will both open the PDF by default unless you tell it to use your own reader. Both gnome and KDE come with a capable reader better than your browser. If you don't like those there are several options. Reading a pdf under Linux is super easy.
- 12ian34 4y ago
  if you want "everything in the world" to not be "so hard" you'd probably avoid Linux.
naillo 4y ago
I had such a different experience. I found the EULA surprisingly readible and easy to understand. Just 5 easy bullet points rather than a multi page document of legalese.
- aliqot 4y ago
  That could have been in-page information rather than a PDF. Or even better, get rid of it. EULA for a font is a wishful move.
  - balefrost 4y ago
    The EULA is giving you permission to e.g. copy and modify the font with certain restrictions (e.g. include the license text if you distribute it). In that regard, it's not terribly dissimilar in spirit from an open source software license.
    - danuker 4y ago
      Why is it not an actual open source license? Perhaps CC-By or something?
      - SamBam 4y ago
        CC-By would require attributing on any page you use it on, right? Their license simply says to include the license if you re-distribute the font.
        eru 4y ago
        The distinction is more between an EULA vs one of the common open source licenses.
        just-ok 4y ago
        Aren’t you re-distributing the font by using it on a webpage? Well, assuming you self-host or provide a third-party link.
ryanmarsh 4y ago
I was showing this exact problem to my wife, a moment after trying to order something from The Container Store and their website being broken, just after trying to pay a bill and that website not working too. I swear to God this f**ing industry.
- johndough 4y ago
  Reminds me of the parking at my local lake were you now have to read a 60 page EULA, a 30 page data "protection" agreement and install an app which requires way too many permissions. I happily paid the quite reasonable parking fee in the past when there still was a human person collecting the money. She was very friendly and always had an interesting story to tell, but now she's out of her job. Anyway, the surveillance cameras have been vandalized and parking is free now.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >Anyway, the surveillance cameras have been vandalized and parking is free now. This totally reads like you just did the vandalizing. Just saying ;-)
- cyral 4y ago
  Do you have an adblocker on? It will frequently break sites especially in the checkout process I have found (probably because their crappy code calls some tracking/analytics script without try/catch and can't continue). 90% of the time disabling it for the page will fix these broken sites.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    > I swear to God this f*ing industry. this again. Developers and any publisher should test their stuff with ad blockers enabled.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      Why? They test in default configurations. As someone who changes many, many default settings, I don't expect developers to test in every possible combination of non-default settings, browser extensions, atypical devices, text zoom settings, etc.
jonpalmisc 4y ago
PDF also cannot change from underneath you, unlike a web page. Better to have a copy of what the license was at the time you agreed to it, imo.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  Pages can be saved in modern browsers about as easily, if they aren’t actually js apps in disguise. Never had a problem doing just that for plain html pages like this could have been.
- bmacho 4y ago
  PDF can change the same as any other format. Yes, line length in an html file if not specified is left to the browser, but css exist and also there are other formats, like txt.
- dylan604 4y ago
  I guess it depends on what wrote the PDF as to how much can be edited later, but I'm constantly opening/modifying/resaving PDFs.
tejtm 4y ago
ff on linux w/ various ad/script blockers can't ever get that far. a never loading page that proclaims itself to be "privileged" on my machine. nope.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
I don't know dude I clicked on it and it just opened in a new tab? I don't think it gets much easier.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

cyral 4y ago

Not sure why it wouldn't open for you, but it opens fine in Chrome on Mac. I thought it would be some ridiculous 50 page legalese but it's actually only 1.5 pages long. it's basically a license similar to what you'd see on a Github repo.

soco 4y ago
But why PDF at all? Is there a reason to put the online license in a PDF? Or any other places, like the restaurant menus? is there anybody who wants/needs to print the license or the restaurant menu?
- bardworx 4y ago
  My guess? They use an agency to service their website and made the license in PDF so the org can change it without incurring additional cost of an update.
  - schwartzworld 4y ago
    To OPs point, a .TXT would work just as well.
    - bardworx 4y ago
      Orgs place a lot of value on control. A TXT, even if better, would be a hard sell. Especially in a 501(c), where optics matter and they are targeting a demographic that usually prefers PDFs.
  - bongobingo1 4y ago
    I think you probably meant to write "can't change it without".
    - bardworx 4y ago
      I was alluding that the Org has the ability to re-upload the pdf in a shared resource without the need of a developer. Vs making the license file a static page that would incur billable hours to update.
      - soco 4y ago
        I'm sure you can upload HTML files in shared resources as well. Or not?
- dual_dingo 4y ago
  I kind of understand it for restaurant menus. Both "real" restaurant and takeway places need to print actual menus and/or flyers, and it's just easier to create a PDF document and upload it to your website than it is to reformat the document to be useful as web page in many cases if you are not well versed in this. Since PDF readers in browsers got decent, this isn't too much of an issue anymore anyway, IMHO.
  - soco 4y ago
    Not an issue indeed if I go to the restaurant table with a computer. Which happens very rarely for me, if ever.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  So organizations that publish documents can store it for legal purposes. A pdf has useful metadata that a text document does not, and can be easily authenticated. If there's a dispute everyone in the legal process understands what a pdf file is.
  - soco 4y ago
    I just wonder how do all other 99% of organizations where the license is a MD file only handle their court cases...
- solardev 4y ago
  > Or any other places, like the restaurant menus? is there anybody who wants/needs to print the license or the restaurant menu? Web devs are expensive, sadly, and not everyone has the patience to figure out the DIY platforms (Square, SquareSpace, Wix, etc.). It got a bit better during the pandemic when takeout took off. But generally restaurants need to print menus anyway, so it's just easier to upload that design as a PDF than to redo it for the web with labor they don't have, or paying for it with margins they don't have...
  - soco 4y ago
    Or rather, they just take their Word menu and "save as PDF". Although they could also "save as HTML" and replace the same file, right? But then the Word formatting would get messy because it wasn't thought for a web page, so here we are.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  I really hate those restaurants that only have QR codes on the table for menus. A restaurant is for eating and talking, not for messing around with my phone. I avoid those now. During Covid there was a slight point (though it was pretty soon proven that surface transmission was so minor a factor not to warrant such actions). But now we should just go back to normal menus.
  - KMnO4 4y ago
    Heh. I went to a sushi restaurant recently and sat down to an iPad menu. After ordering a few rolls and confirming the order, it was delivered by a robot[0]. After finishing the plates, I returned them to the robot which carried them away. I scanned a QR code on the table which allowed me to pay for everything from my phone. Curiously, I was presented with options to tip 18%, 20%, 30%, or other. I thought about it and tipped accordingly to the effort the waitress put into my experience. Shortly after, the manager came to me (essentially the first point of human interaction) and asked if there was anything wrong that caused me to tip 0%. So yes, I too really hate the direction restaurants are heading in. [0]: https://www.pudurobotics.com/product/detail/pudubot2 https://www.pudurobotics.com/product/detail/pudubot2
    - mjevans 4y ago
      I agree with tipping the robots (for whom service is always the same) N% of their wage; which is still 0. Tips should be _not-legal_ and proper wages for the workers should be _required_.
    - Zak 4y ago
      I'm curious who would get the tip in this scenario. The sushi chef? Ok, I guess. The restaurant owner? I'm going with 0%. The robot? Maybe if it can pass a Turing test.
      - verall 4y ago
        > The sushi chef? Yes, and most likely split with other cooks, host/hostess, and waitstaff for people that refuse to use the iPad. > The restaurant owner? Illegal in most states. What an iconoclast, refusing to tip hourly workers...
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  PDF works better when downloaded, sent over e-mail, printed to be used in a court case or hard archives, and has stood the test of time.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  99% of the browsers in use have a built in pdf reader these days.
  - soco 4y ago
    Which is exactly why I'm not complaining that I cannot open it. I'm complaining that the experience sucks - if you have a mobile phone you know what I mean. Unless you go with a computer in the restaurants, of course.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > But why PDF at all? Is there a reason to put the online license in a PDF? Yes. It's so that you have a dated copy. An web-page with the license on it can be retroactively changed.
  - just-ok 4y ago
    Are you distinguishing between a PDF that downloads by default (rather than using an in-browser preview)? Because I’m that case, you could download the license page just the same.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > Are you distinguishing between a PDF that downloads by default (rather than using an in-browser preview)? Because I’m that case, you could download the license page just the same. The metadata on the license page does not offer the same guarantees as the metadata in the PDF. The PDF can even be signed; the license page cannot.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    You can save web pages as easily as you can save PDFs. You can also edit PDF files with common office tools. The only thing PDF works for is ensuring the rendered copy looks exactly the same everywhere and to add a signature but I don't see the value in those two options for this use case; if anything, this institution should let the user agrnt decide how the text is remdered best and we don't know their public key to validate their signature.

leephillips 4y ago

It downloads rather than opening in your browser because that’s how you’ve configured your browser. For me it opens in the browser (albeit in a new tab). There’s nothing wrong with the PDF, I can open it with all the PDF readers on my machine; it’s a basic v.1.6 PDF file. This is, in fact a “nice link to some web page text”: a page of text served over the web.

teo_zero 4y ago
I think linking a PDF is less friendly to users who need Text-to-Speech technology, something the Braille Institute should be sensitive to...
- Tempest1981 4y ago
  What font does the PDF use? Maybe their Atkinson font?
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    It does indeed :) Kinda funny that you need to read the EULA before downloading it because once you have the PDF on your computer you have already downloaded the font.
- leephillips 4y ago
  That’s a good point. I have no idea if Text-to-Speech works with PDF.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    It does, and in many cases even better than on most web pages.

einpoklum 4y ago

> By downloading, installing and/or using the font software, you confirm that you have read and agree to be bound by the terms of this End-User License Agreement ... says them. I don't agree and I don't confirm. I can download the font without accepting/consenting to whatever text they put on the web page. And if they're not ok with that - they can limit the availability of the download to only those who accept whatever weird terms they put in that PDF you mentioned. Except they won't do that, since that would harm adoption of their font. More about this kind of "licenses": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract

dannyw 4y ago
You can clone a GPL-licensed repository without clicking any checkboxes either, but if you violate the license, you can expect to be sued.
lupire 4y ago
Shrinkwrap/clickwrap is when the license is displayed after you pay for the product. The concept doesn't and cannot apply to freely downloadable content.
cyral 4y ago
> Except they won't do that, since that would harm adoption of their font. Is it because it would harm adoption or because it's infeasible? You can download copyrighted images and use them for your own profit, copy github code with GPL code for your closed-source project, or sign pretty much any contract (say for a car or a house) without actually reading it. Just because there is no safeguard to ensure you are really read what you "agreed" to, doesn't mean it's unenforcable. Moreover, the terms are very simple (1.5 pages) - hardly some "weird terms" to define how you are allowed to redistribute intellectual property.
npteljes 4y ago
>And if they're not ok with that Then they can sue. EULAs often state things that don't matter in the jurisdiction of the end user, yes. But copyright is not related to that. If they hold the copyright to the font, then they can set the rules in the license, and if those don't clash with the local laws of your place, then you're liable legally. And yes, they probably won't do that. But that's, again, a different matter, other copyrighted works are also always stolen.

kulhur 4y ago

> Why must everything in the world be so hard? linux user?

GekkePrutser 4y ago
On FreeBSD with Firefox this PDF opened right away, just saying
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  Loaded for me too, zero issues.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Firefox and chrome will both open the PDF by default unless you tell it to use your own reader. Both gnome and KDE come with a capable reader better than your browser. If you don't like those there are several options. Reading a pdf under Linux is super easy.
12ian34 4y ago
if you want "everything in the world" to not be "so hard" you'd probably avoid Linux.

naillo 4y ago

I had such a different experience. I found the EULA surprisingly readible and easy to understand. Just 5 easy bullet points rather than a multi page document of legalese.

aliqot 4y ago
That could have been in-page information rather than a PDF. Or even better, get rid of it. EULA for a font is a wishful move.
- balefrost 4y ago
  The EULA is giving you permission to e.g. copy and modify the font with certain restrictions (e.g. include the license text if you distribute it). In that regard, it's not terribly dissimilar in spirit from an open source software license.
  - danuker 4y ago
    Why is it not an actual open source license? Perhaps CC-By or something?
    - SamBam 4y ago
      CC-By would require attributing on any page you use it on, right? Their license simply says to include the license if you re-distribute the font.
      - eru 4y ago
        The distinction is more between an EULA vs one of the common open source licenses.
      - just-ok 4y ago
        Aren’t you re-distributing the font by using it on a webpage? Well, assuming you self-host or provide a third-party link.

ryanmarsh 4y ago

I was showing this exact problem to my wife, a moment after trying to order something from The Container Store and their website being broken, just after trying to pay a bill and that website not working too. I swear to God this f**ing industry.

johndough 4y ago
Reminds me of the parking at my local lake were you now have to read a 60 page EULA, a 30 page data "protection" agreement and install an app which requires way too many permissions. I happily paid the quite reasonable parking fee in the past when there still was a human person collecting the money. She was very friendly and always had an interesting story to tell, but now she's out of her job. Anyway, the surveillance cameras have been vandalized and parking is free now.
- dylan604 4y ago
  >Anyway, the surveillance cameras have been vandalized and parking is free now. This totally reads like you just did the vandalizing. Just saying ;-)
cyral 4y ago
Do you have an adblocker on? It will frequently break sites especially in the checkout process I have found (probably because their crappy code calls some tracking/analytics script without try/catch and can't continue). 90% of the time disabling it for the page will fix these broken sites.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  > I swear to God this f*ing industry. this again. Developers and any publisher should test their stuff with ad blockers enabled.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    Why? They test in default configurations. As someone who changes many, many default settings, I don't expect developers to test in every possible combination of non-default settings, browser extensions, atypical devices, text zoom settings, etc.

jonpalmisc 4y ago

PDF also cannot change from underneath you, unlike a web page. Better to have a copy of what the license was at the time you agreed to it, imo.

mattnewton 4y ago
Pages can be saved in modern browsers about as easily, if they aren’t actually js apps in disguise. Never had a problem doing just that for plain html pages like this could have been.
bmacho 4y ago
PDF can change the same as any other format. Yes, line length in an html file if not specified is left to the browser, but css exist and also there are other formats, like txt.
dylan604 4y ago
I guess it depends on what wrote the PDF as to how much can be edited later, but I'm constantly opening/modifying/resaving PDFs.

tejtm 4y ago

ff on linux w/ various ad/script blockers can't ever get that far. a never loading page that proclaims itself to be "privileged" on my machine. nope.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

I don't know dude I clicked on it and it just opened in a new tab? I don't think it gets much easier.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]