Re: Which font used in the logo - Armada Regular

[Peter Nermander]

> It?s not a question of reward, it?s economy here. And I?m a bit shocked to
> read on this list that ~40USD for a professional grade typeface is more
> than
> it should be.

It is often a matter of how much the client is prepared to pay.

If he tells the client that he can not reproduce the logot without buying an
expensive font, the client will probably have someone else do it.


It is also a matter of how much the font will be used. Sure, I would gladly
pay a lot for a font I would use every day (for example in a magazine). But
for a single use (like a single broschure) the cost seems a bit high.

I wish fonts would be licensed the same way for example photographs are: You
pay a certain amount for a defined usage. Any usage outside the agreement
needs a new agreement (and probably a new fee). That way you could pay a
small fee to use the font for a single product, and a bigger fee to use it
for a long time.

/Peter


_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[William F. Maddock]

On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 12:58 +0200, Peter Nermander wrote:

> > It?s not a question of reward, it?s economy here. And I?m a bit shocked to
> > read on this list that ~40USD for a professional grade typeface is more
> > than
> > it should be.
>
> It is often a matter of how much the client is prepared to pay.
>
> If he tells the client that he can not reproduce the logot without buying an
> expensive font, the client will probably have someone else do it.
>
>
> It is also a matter of how much the font will be used. Sure, I would gladly
> pay a lot for a font I would use every day (for example in a magazine). But
> for a single use (like a single broschure) the cost seems a bit high.
>
> I wish fonts would be licensed the same way for example photographs are: You
> pay a certain amount for a defined usage. Any usage outside the agreement
> needs a new agreement (and probably a new fee). That way you could pay a
> small fee to use the font for a single product, and a bigger fee to use it
> for a long time.

A drawing program and a scanner would solve the problem rather easily.
In most cases, when a particular font is chosen for a logo, it is chosen
as a result of some compromises having been made by those who want the
logo. Discover the compromises and redraw the characters without those
compromises being included.
                                   
________________________________________________________________________

                      http://www.lulu.com/billsey


_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[davelab6]

2008/5/24 Peter Nermander <peter@...>:
>
> I wish fonts would be licensed the same way for example photographs

But fonts are functional software, and photos are typically decorative artwork.

Fonts ought to be like Scribus: free as in freedom.

--
Regards,
Dave

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[Pierre Marchand]

Vous (Dave Crossland) avez écrit :
> 2008/5/24 Peter Nermander <peter@...>:
> > I wish fonts would be licensed the same way for example photographs
>
> But fonts are functional software, and photos are typically decorative
> artwork.

Since we’re yet in Gutenberg era, we can’t say that a font is a pure
functional piece of software. As of today, it’s still a collection of graphic
elements (more than decorative I agree, and one could even argue that glyphs
as part of a script system _are_ logical elements but it would lead to a
rather long discussion with the need of a lot of wine, etc.) encapsulated in
a simplistic software.
We can imagine or hope or think or guess that in the future fonts will be
actual "scripter" programs. I mean not just handle the pre-processing known
as shaper (note that it does not nowadays) but also offer all necessary logic
to preserve text color (MM fonts or METAFONT fonts address(ed?) some of these
problems but both are not largely used in a "graphic design" context) through
justification where you might want to distort glyphs and alter spaces, and
more. But even in this future, I think we’ll be some persons (yeah, plain
old-fashioned!) to just refuse such integrated systems and want to use glyphs
as they are rather than format text --- what I’ve prepared for myself by
writting Undertype ;-)
So, I don’t think that glyphs should be licensed as photos because they are
not just artwork, I don’t think either that they can be treated as plain
software, nor double licensed! So, I don’t know exactly, just think that
moral right (rough translation from FR) should be preserved.

>
> Fonts ought to be like Scribus: free as in freedom.

Free fonts are panacea, but exception too :)



--
Pierre Marchand

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[davelab6]

2008/5/25 Pierre Marchand <capparis@...>:
> Vous (Dave Crossland) avez écrit :
>> 2008/5/24 Peter Nermander <peter@...>:
>> > I wish fonts would be licensed the same way for example photographs
>>
>> But fonts are functional software, and photos are typically decorative
>> artwork.
>
> a rather long discussion with the need of a lot of wine, etc.

lol - that is indeed what this is :-)

> So, I don't think that glyphs should be licensed as photos because they are
> not just artwork, I don't think either that they can be treated as plain
> software, nor double licensed! So, I don't know exactly,

I believe that since fonts are software, and since type designs are
functional - a type design you can't read with is non-functional -
then they ought to be free in the same way as program software is, and
functional information like encyclopedias is too. The "glyphs are art"
reasoning is at best a misunderstanding of design as art, and at worse
a sneaky way for proprietary software developers to justify DRM.

> just think that moral right (rough translation from FR) should be preserved.

I agree, and the moral rights of authors do not conflict with the
rights users of functional information ought to have :-)

>> Fonts ought to be like Scribus: free as in freedom.
>
> Free fonts are panacea, but exception too :)

That's gonna change :-)

--
Regards,
Dave
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[avox]

davelab6 wrote:

2008/5/25 Pierre Marchand <[e-mail]>:
> Vous (Dave Crossland) avez écrit :
>> 2008/5/24 Peter Nermander <[e-mail]>:
>> > I wish fonts would be licensed the same way for example photographs
>>
>> But fonts are functional software, and photos are typically decorative
>> artwork.

And photos take only seconds or minutes to produce, while fonts take months or years.

>
> a rather long discussion with the need of a lot of wine, etc.

lol - that is indeed what this is :-)

> So, I don't think that glyphs should be licensed as photos because they are
> not just artwork, I don't think either that they can be treated as plain
> software, nor double licensed! So, I don't know exactly,

I believe that since fonts are software, and since type designs are
functional - a type design you can't read with is non-functional -
then they ought to be free in the same way as program software is, and
functional information like encyclopedias is too. The "glyphs are art"
reasoning is at best a misunderstanding of design as art, and at worse
a sneaky way for proprietary software developers to justify DRM.

So if function is all that matters, noone would need more tha Courier /
Times / Helvetica surely? Those are quite readable.

IMO a font designer has the right to profit from his/her work, and as long as
one needs money for living, the font designer should decide how to pay for
the use of his/her work.

/Andreas

[davelab6]

2008/5/25 avox <avox@...>:
>>>>
>>>> But fonts are functional software, and photos are typically decorative
>>>> artwork.
>
> And photos take only seconds or minutes to produce, while
> fonts take months or years.

Complex programs also take years to produce. As do encyclopedias with
10,000 core articles of high quality. As do open street maps.

>> I believe that since fonts are software, and since type designs are
>> functional - a type design you can't read with is non-functional -
>> then they ought to be free in the same way as program software is, and
>> functional information like encyclopedias is too. The "glyphs are art"
>> reasoning is at best a misunderstanding of design as art, and at worse
>> a sneaky way for proprietary software developers to justify DRM.
>
> So if function is all that matters, noone would need more tha Courier /
> Times / Helvetica surely? Those are quite readable.

Usually this argument only includes one typeface, because including
several indicates that a variety of type designs are needed.

That's because, although the ability to read words is the primary
function of a type design, and being recognisable as a "letter" is
what defines shapes of letters from other shapes, that is not the
_only_ functional aspect.

We need many more free fonts than those three - just as many as
existing as proprietary software - because there are _many_ secondary
aspects of type designs that have a massive effect on how well they
function.

There are also many tertiary aspects about how type designs are
implemented in software too.

For example: Helvetica is a great type design for signage and large
scale use, but it not intended for reading paragraphs of text at 10pt,
and if its font isn't hinted well, it will work very poorly at small
sizes. Other sans serif type designs are intended for reading long
texts with, and can be well hinted to function on screen as well as on
paper.

> IMO a font designer has the right to profit from his/her work, and as long
> as one needs money for living, the font designer should decide how
> to pay for the use of his/her work.

I could answer that nobody is forced to be a type designer. Most of us
cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something
else.

But that is the wrong answer because it accepts an implicit
assumption: that without total control of the use of font software,
type designers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or
nothing.

The real reason type designers will not starve is that it will still
be possible for them to get paid for type design; just not paid as
much as now.

Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It
is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it
were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, business would move to
other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are
always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.

Probably type design will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it
is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not
considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they
now do. If type designers made the same, that would not be an
injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more
than that.)

There are plenty of ways that type designers could make a living
without selling various ways of using fonts. This way is customary now
because it brings type designers and publishers the most money, not
because it is the only way for them to make a living. It is easy to
find other ways if you want to find them.

Here are a number of real world examples of free font software being paid for:

A type designer finds 1 person who wants a font exclusively, and they
pay 100% of the development cost (including a profit margin)

A type designer finds 2 people who want a similar font unexclusively,
and they pay 2/3rd of the cost each, leaving 1/3rd profit margin.

A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
fonts onto the new hardware.

An OS developer introducing a new OS will pay for the porting of fonts
onto the new text layout engine.

A lingusitics organization employs type designers to enable the
organization to promote literacy in very poor areas of the world.

The sale of teaching services also employs type designers.

I'm not sure that anyone has a _right_ to profit, because if someone
with a better business model starts their business, they ought to
drive that person into bankruptcy.

There is nothing wrong about doing business and making profit and
making a living, as long as that business isn't socially harmful; many
kinds of businesses are illegal, many more are socially frowned upon.

Proprietary software is socially harmful, and I think I may have a
better business model for making fonts than the proprietary guys; I'm
certain I have a business model that can co-exist with them. Afterall,
the only OS developers who have survived Microsoft are either owned by
Microsoft (eg: Apple) or free software developers :-)

(This email is largely parodying http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[Asif Lodhi]

Hi Andreas,

On 5/25/08, avox <avox@...> wrote:
> ..... fonts take months or years.

I do plan to design at least one font whenever I can find some time. I
first intend to go through the Open Font Library that some kind soul
mentioned earlier in the thread. However, is your above statement
really true?

Would other people, who have designed one or more fonts, like to give
their opinions?

--
Asif

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[davelab6]

2008/5/25 Asif Lodhi <asif.lodhi@...>:
> On 5/25/08, avox <avox@...> wrote:
>> ..... fonts take months or years.
>
> really true?
> Would other people, who have designed one or more fonts, like to give
> their opinions?

I'm studying the MA degree in Typeface Design at the University of
Reading's Typography Department, and know a number of professional
type designers/font developers personally.

A new premier-grade type design implemented as a production quality
font takes around one year to produce by a single person.

On the MATD programme, we take 3 months to draw the word "adhesion" in
the type design we want, and then 3 months to complete the lowercase
latin alphabet and the numerals. Then another 3 months for the italic
and all the diacritics required in all Europe, and another 3 for a
complex (arabic, indic) or non-latin (greek/cyrillic/etc) script to
complement the roman/italic. Then we spend a few months after
graduating making the bold and bold italic and perfecting things.

--
Regards,
Dave

I support www.gnuherds.org -
democratic free software jobs

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[Mourad Mokrane]

Hi,

I am currently working on a font for already 5 months and I'm at
aproximately 1/4 of the work. I is a lot harder than it seems... Just
finalizing the drawing on paper took me more than 2,5 months. Then was the
scanning/tracing process, curve optimization, redrawing some of the glyphs
to make them look better, etc, etc...

If you plan to create a full font family (including italic, bold, roman,
etc... variations), you have to think in years, not only months...

But it is fun to make fonts, at least I like the (painfully slow but
rewarding) process.

Molumen


----- Original Message -----
From: "Asif Lodhi" <asif.lodhi@...>
To: "Scribus User Mailing List" <scribus@...>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: [scribus] Which font used in the logo - Armada Regular

> Hi Andreas,
>
> On 5/25/08, avox <avox@...> wrote:
>> ..... fonts take months or years.
>
> I do plan to design at least one font whenever I can find some time. I
> first intend to go through the Open Font Library that some kind soul
> mentioned earlier in the thread. However, is your above statement
> really true?
>
> Would other people, who have designed one or more fonts, like to give
> their opinions?
>
> --
> Asif
>
> _______________________________________________
> scribus mailing list
> scribus@...
> http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus
>

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[Hirwen HARENDAL]

avox wrote:> >> ..... fonts take months or years.
Asif Lodhi wrote
> > really true?> > Would other people, who have designed one or more fonts, like to give> > their opinions?Dave Crossland wrote> I'm studying the MA degree in Typeface Design at the University of> Reading's Typography Department, and know a number of professional> type designers/font developers personally.> > A new premier-grade type design implemented as a production quality> font takes around one year to produce by a single person.> > On the MATD programme, we take 3 months to draw the word "adhesion" in> the type design we want, and then 3 months to complete the lowercase> latin alphabet and the numerals. Then another 3 months for the italic> and all the diacritics required in all Europe, and another 3 for a> complex (arabic, indic) or non-latin (greek/cyrillic/etc) script to> complement the roman/italic. Then we spend a few months after> graduating making the bold and bold italic and perfecting things.
 
** I stated to make fonts 10 years ago, and learned how to use glyph
in order to make other glyphes and rework them(l > i, h > n, b>d,p,q etc...)
and an egrave is a composite glyph at start.
So draw glyphes, it's just an aspect of the font, depending of the tool used.
Hint (I hint manually), kern, spacing ajustement or opentype feature scripts
and more takes a lot of time.
Sur, I'm not alone. I have friends and few persons on this list working
to test in order to impove the font development... But for to do simple
here some examples:
- The gillius collection born on this list in june of the last year gets its
"final version" last week. Just change the rendering of the "l" (lslash and
fl liga too) take a complet afternoon for only 4 fonts...
- The complet collection of Aurelis is something like 4 years of work.
some fonts aren't finished (like titling or outlines)
- I started the Ikarius (inspired from HypatiaSans) in july2007.
- The universalis font suggested by steeve as alternative to futura, and
created in february haven't all the character set completed...
- And Roger Sperberg can tell you how many time for 2 fonts...
 
Now Why? Not only because I love that. All programs I use, are free
or opensource. A DTP program like scribus is a gift for me.
I was very disappointed by the quality of many polices and refuse
me to have appeal to the piracy. I thus tried to create mine.
Everybody can benefit from the work done now. That says, nothing
is never perfect... But need time.
 
Ok, I have the chance to be able to work on my stuff at office (don't
repeat that... But my boss is also interested ;-)) and I don't work all
the time on the same font or family, may be 2 or 3 days and recome back
few days later in order to see (apreciate) the stuff and work where
changes are needed.
 
Sorry! fonts aren't like photos! I can anderstand why they seem so
expensive, and why free fonts are need and not only for design...
 
Hirwen HARENDAL
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Votre contact a choisi Hotmail, l'e-mail ultra sécurisé. Créez un compte gratuitement !
http://www.windowslive.fr/hotmail/default.asp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20080526/19f3830f/attachment.htm 
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[Henry Hartley]

avox wrote:

>> And photos take only seconds or minutes to produce, while fonts
>> take months or years.

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.

--
Henry
Sometimes photographer


_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[davelab6]

2008/5/26 Hirwen HARENDAL <harendalh@...>:
>
> - The gillius collection
> - I started the Ikarius (inspired from HypatiaSans) in july2007.
> - The universalis font suggested by steeve as alternative to futura,

These are available from http://pagesperso-orange.fr/arkandis/ADF/index.html :-)

Thank for all your work with these, Hirwen :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[avox]

Henry Hartley wrote:

avox wrote:

>> And photos take only seconds or minutes to produce, while fonts
>> take months or years.

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.

Well, value is in the eye of the beholder, and market prices only give a crude
idea of an objects value.

My comment was more geared at how font designers earn their money. Once
a photographer has honed her skills, she can produce a larger variety of photos
than a fontdesigner can produce different fonts in the same time. Photographers
usually sell different photos to different people, while a successful fontdesigner
is able to sell the same font to many people. That's why it's a much larger
sacrifice for a fontdesigner to give away a quality font for free than for a
photographer to give away a photo, IMHO.

/Andreas

[avox]

davelab6 wrote:

2008/5/25 avox <[e-mail]>:
> So if function is all that matters, noone would need more tha Courier /
> Times / Helvetica surely? Those are quite readable.

Usually this argument only includes one typeface, because including
several indicates that a variety of type designs are needed.

Only because TeX distinguishes roman, sans serif and teletype :-)

That's because, although the ability to read words is the primary
function of a type design, and being recognisable as a "letter" is
what defines shapes of letters from other shapes, that is not the
_only_ functional aspect.

We need many more free fonts than those three - just as many as
existing as proprietary software - because there are _many_ secondary
aspects of type designs that have a massive effect on how well they
function.

true

There are also many tertiary aspects about how type designs are
implemented in software too.

For example: Helvetica is a great type design for signage and large
scale use, but it not intended for reading paragraphs of text at 10pt,
and if its font isn't hinted well, it will work very poorly at small
sizes. Other sans serif type designs are intended for reading long
texts with, and can be well hinted to function on screen as well as on
paper.

> IMO a font designer has the right to profit from his/her work, and as long
> as one needs money for living, the font designer should decide how
> to pay for the use of his/her work.

I could answer that nobody is forced to be a type designer. Most of us
cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something
else.

But that is the wrong answer because it accepts an implicit
assumption: that without total control of the use of font software,
type designers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or
nothing.

That's not what I think; I just think that the fontdesigner should decide
how and how much he/she should be paid.

The real reason type designers will not starve is that it will still
be possible for them to get paid for type design; just not paid as
much as now.

Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software.

I know.

It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it
were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, business would move to
other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are
always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.

Probably type design will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it
is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not
considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they
now do. If type designers made the same, that would not be an
injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more
than that.)

There are plenty of ways that type designers could make a living
without selling various ways of using fonts. This way is customary now
because it brings type designers and publishers the most money, not
because it is the only way for them to make a living. It is easy to
find other ways if you want to find them.

Here are a number of real world examples of free font software being paid for:

A type designer finds 1 person who wants a font exclusively, and they
pay 100% of the development cost (including a profit margin)

A type designer finds 2 people who want a similar font unexclusively,
and they pay 2/3rd of the cost each, leaving 1/3rd profit margin.

A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
fonts onto the new hardware.

An OS developer introducing a new OS will pay for the porting of fonts
onto the new text layout engine.

A lingusitics organization employs type designers to enable the
organization to promote literacy in very poor areas of the world.

The sale of teaching services also employs type designers.

I'm not sure that anyone has a _right_ to profit, because if someone
with a better business model starts their business, they ought to
drive that person into bankruptcy.

Difficult semantics here. I meant that font designers have the right to
offer their product on the market and keep the money they get for it.
Of course, if there are no buyers, there will be no profit.

There is nothing wrong about doing business and making profit and
making a living, as long as that business isn't socially harmful; many
kinds of businesses are illegal, many more are socially frowned upon.

Proprietary software is socially harmful, and I think I may have a
better business model for making fonts than the proprietary guys; I'm
certain I have a business model that can co-exist with them. Afterall,
the only OS developers who have survived Microsoft are either owned by
Microsoft (eg: Apple) or free software developers :-)

(This email is largely parodying http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html :-)

Uh, I'm afraid that this irony is lost on me. You mean your whole email is
a parody? Or just the last paragraph?

/Andreas

[John Beardmore]

avox wrote:

  That's why it's a much larger
> sacrifice for a fontdesigner to give away a quality font for free than for a
> photographer to give away a photo, IMHO.

Maybe it's got more to do with the proportion of your work that you give
away ?

And maybe it has to do with the reputation that gives you, and what you
want to give to the world too ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore, MSc EDM (Open), B.A. Chem (Oxon), CMIOSH, AIEMA, MEI
Managing Director, T4 Sustainability Limited. http://www.T4sLtd.co.uk/
Carbon Trust Consultant: Energy Audit, Carbon Footprint, Design Advice
Energy Efficiency Accreditation Scheme, (EEAS), Registered Assessor
Phone: [phone]   Mobile: [phone]   Skype: t4sustainability

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[davelab6]

2008/5/27 avox <avox@...>:

> davelab6 wrote:
>>> IMO a font designer has the right to profit from his/her work, and as
>>> long
>>> as one needs money for living, the font designer should decide how
>>> to pay for the use of his/her work.
>>
>> an implicit
>> assumption: that without total control of the use of font software,
>> type designers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or
>> nothing
>
> That's not what I think; I just think that the fontdesigner should decide
> how and how much he/she should be paid.

I agree with you - but decisions comes with responsibilities, such as
to make an ethical decision.

>> I'm not sure that anyone has a _right_ to profit, because if someone
>> with a better business model starts their business, they ought to
>> drive that person into bankruptcy.
>
> Difficult semantics here. I meant that font designers have the right to
> offer their product on the market and keep the money they get for it.
> Of course, if there are no buyers, there will be no profit.

I agree here too :-) I will not buy proprietary software licenses.

Although normally, deciding to get paid in unethical ways
(counterfeiting, fraud, racketeering...) is often outlawed, I'm not
sure proprietary software should be outlawed; I just hope it will go
away eventually :-)

>> (This email is largely parodying http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html :-)
>
> Uh, I'm afraid that this irony is lost on me. You mean your whole email is
> a parody? Or just the last paragraph?

What I mean is, before I was born, Stallman covered the risk of not
getting rich is not a justification for restricting people. His logic
for programs translates directly to fonts, and I basically copy and
pasted the GNU manifesto and changed "programs" to "fonts" :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[Hirwen HARENDAL]

> From: dave@...> > > - The universalis font suggested by steeve as alternative to futura,** Not available, but a PDF with the pre-version is available here ;-)http://cid-23f7aeedc6ad5c53.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Work/Universalis-test.pdf
 
(for waiting th development, Numbers coming from gillius-regular like
some other symbols...)> Thank for all your work with these, Hirwen :-)
** Thanks to all which is free and offered to all by developers...
 
Good publication to all.
Hirwen
_________________________________________________________________
Votre contact a choisi Hotmail, l'e-mail ultra sécurisé. Créez un compte gratuitement !
http://www.windowslive.fr/hotmail/default.asp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20080528/7ee15c72/attachment.htm 
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus@...
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus