2008/5/27 avox <avox at arcor.de>: > 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
