[indymike]

Regularly. We'd probably have opted to not license from this foundry because of this clause in the license:

"9.6 Cinetype Limited reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify or replace this Agreement at any time. If a revision is material we will provide at least 30 days' notice prior to any new terms taking effect."

This is an unneeded Darth Vader clause.

[mpatane]

I know these things can be easily misleading, and I tried my best with the IP lawyer to make the EULA intelligible and simple as much as possible. This particular clause shouldn’t be seen as potentially damaging for the customer. I want to be absolutely clear about this: you buy the font now, and the EULA included in the package that you get will be valid forever.

But as a business, I cannot tie myself to a document that is published and that in two years’ time could be obsolete. I understand some people think it’s already obsolete, but it’s not. With one license you have what most commonly requires three licenses: Desktop, Web and App.

Regarding the tiers, the principle is simple: the font is a value for a business, either in terms of brand value or product value, and a business pays according to the value that the font brings.

A startup with little investment has all what it needs to adopt the font throughout the entire range of usages and assets (in Print and Digital).

Going back to the ‘Darth Vedery’ clause. If there will be any change to the EULA, this will apply to the fonts distributed from the time we will publish the new EULA (this is also why EULAs come with a version number and a publication date).

The new EULA won’t work retrospectively. That would be beyond evil, I totally agree. No fear of “Luke, I am your father” kind of situation. If previous customers will find the new EULA a better fit for their needs, they will be free to comply to it, if not, they will refer to the original EULA attached to the font they bought. In simple words, older customers will always have the best of what comes next.

[oji0hub]

Imho, the licensing agreement creates a barrier for purchase while likely providing little protection because much of it is likely not enforceable in practice.

[Silhouette]

I agree such clauses are absurd. Of course whether it has as much legal weight as the paper it is never going to be printed on is another matter.

I thought the objections to the licensing in this case were more about the limitations like having a maximum number of users covered, but perhaps I misunderstood what at least some people were upset about.