[anikom15]

Print shops can’t just magically replicate any on-screen color on print, even if the print color is defined by some paint formula. There are too many variations involved. There has to be process for calibrating the equipment and accounting for variation in the materials to get a proper match. You still need a company like Pantone to provide that, even if you want to use a slightly different print color that looks the same as another Pantone color on-screen.

[nerdponx]

My point is that nobody is debating this! This is entirely about having an "unencumbered" set of RGB approximations to those same colors. When you send your design to the printer or whatever, you still need to specify the actual Pantone colors.

[Dylan16807]

True, which is why Pantone should be happy even if you don't pay the subscription fee, because they're still going to be used plenty.

Making it harder to describe your product in terms of Pantone colors hurts them, which is the dumbest part of this situation.

[capableweb]

> True, which is why Pantone should be happy even if you don't pay the subscription fee, because they're still going to be used plenty.

That doesn't sound right. Pantone is a for-profit company who doesn't get paid unless you pay something to them. They do not get any money from you just using anything Pantone.

If Pantone was a non-profit/FOSS project then sure, they would be happy for any type of usage. But they're not, so not sure why they should be happy if people are not paying.

[ehvatum]

> But they're not, so not sure why they should be happy if people are not paying.

Because of this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33389848 your use of Pantone colors for free causes your print shop to spend huge sums on Pantone goods and services.

[tln]

Sure, I didn't suggest otherwise.

FWIW I don't think this "freetone" library is very practical. Pros who need it will pay the $15/mo to pantone, in addition to the $99/mo they pay to Adobe.