[Trisquel-users] A letter from Canada Type, and freedom 1

[e***@me.com]

I love fonts. In a way, my love for them was what led me to free software,
but I won't get into that story.

I'm sending twelve near-identical letters to twelve different proprietary
font foundries, asking to purchase a specific one of their fonts under the
OFL and outlining some of the arguments for FLOSS. Today I got my first
response from a foundry called Canada Type, to whose site I won't link for
obvious reasons. I've attached a scan of their response, with some personal
information removed. I'm just a bit disappointed — they seemed like a
nicer foundry than usual; their EULA even allows modification.

Gibson's contractual limitations aside, it seems they only rejected my
request because of money. Which brings me to my next point: for a while I've
been questioning freedom 2 of the FSD (to distribute verbatim copies, and to
charge any price). Obviously freedom 3 is essential: suppose a developer puts
a malicious feature into otherwise functional software; users must be able to
remove that feature and give copies of the software to those who do not know
how to remove it themselves. But distributing copies, for any price?

To put this in perspective (although, I like to think of the FSD as the
freedoms of the rest of life applied to software. In real life, no one's
going to say you can't use your car for commercial purposes, or you're a
criminal if you repaint it. And of course you could sell that repainted car
for any price.

But here's where the difference between software and real life comes in:
software takes little to no effort to copy. If copying cars were as easy as
copying software, the equivalent would be magically setting up a car
manufacturing facility in your house, cranking out cars identical to yours,
and giving them away free — or for a higher price than the original
manufacturer charges.

In real life, that could get you arrested for counterfeiting merchandise. The
manufacturer worked hard to develop that car! They designed it, bought the
parts for it, built it, charged a price that reflected the cost of creating
it — and now you are giving it away and depriving them of their
hard-earned money (or even profiting from their work)!

Replace "car" with software in the above paragraph, and I hope you can begin
to see my point. (I can't quite put it into words; this is the best I can do
for now.)

Anyway, if I get any other responses to my letters I'll post them here.

[o***@gmail.com]

Post by e***@me.com
In real life, that could get you arrested for counterfeiting merchandise. The
manufacturer worked hard to develop that car!

That's not quite right. There are trademark laws; you could get in trouble
for trying to pass of a car you built as one of Toyota's cars, but that's a
different issue. The purpose of trademark law is to make it clear to
customers what they're buying; if you claim the car you built was a Toyota
car, you would be deceiving someone.

Post by e***@me.com
software takes little to no effort to copy. If copying cars were as easy as
copying software, the equivalent would be magically setting up a car
manufacturing facility in your house, cranking out cars identical to yours,
and giving them away free — or for a higher price than the original
manufacturer charges.

Information, such as programs or creative works, can never be compared to
physical goods. Physical goods cannot be copied without cost. You yourself
mentioned this. This means that the business of selling copies of a creative
work is artificial. It always has been, in fact, but when the printing press
was the predominant method of copying (when copyright was invented). Note
that copyright, an artificial monopoly which is frankly obsolete, is all that
prevents commercial distribution of anything; nobody prevents you from making
money selling copies of Shakespeare's work, nor should they.

[m***@gmail.com]

Plus, in what way would it be better to not have the modified software at
all? I mean, the free software definition does not force anybody to
redistribute her modified versions. Or would you like to change that as well?

If the software is overpriced, a group of user can pay a developer (probably
one involved in the base project) to make the same changes.

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

Congratulations for your work!

I suggest you ask them to license one of their fonts on free license
such as the GNU AGPLv3 and ask for donations for it, mentioning they are
trying to finance their noble ideals. If they consider it works well
they could license all their fonts that way. You could also mention that
teaching that showing others to share might show them that a better
World is possible.
--
Saludos libres,

Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
[phone]
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a

Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.

[e***@me.com]

I definitely plan to do that if one of the twelve foundries agrees to grant
me such a license.

[g***@lavabit.com]

Free Software IS real life. We human beings of modernity usually have this
stupid habit of projecting moral problems in nonsense abstract dilemmas as
"reality vs. abstraction", the first being the sad aspect we would like to
change and the latter the happy world where we become refugees of our sorrow.
Without getting rid of such mentality, we are going to Hell (in Earth...).

I believe it's OK if one doesn't want to change his (and others', of course)
work model; after all, he is in his rights to do it. What is frustrating to
me is the persistence of misunderstandings people do not care to fix: they
dig more and more their intellectual and psychological graves and do not give
a shit about it.

[e***@me.com]

I finally figured out how to put it into words (and I can't believe it took
this long. If you can copy something without cost, why should you have the
freedom to charge any price you want for it?

[j***@bluehome.net]

"why should you have the freedom to charge any price you want for it?"

Why not? Paying can help support the development of free software. As an
example, RMS used to charge money to send people free software on magnetic
tape. This was a good way to raise money in the beginning of GNU so he could
work on GNU. If it were required that programs be distributed without cost, I
wonder where GNU would be today? RMS likely could not have dedicated 100% of
his time to work on it as he did, quitting his job at MIT and all.

If you're concerned about someone overcharging, don't be -- The thing about
free software is that it spreads around - If they're overcharging you can be
sure someone will come along and undercut their prices.

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

Post by e***@me.com
If you can copy something without cost, why should you have the
freedom to charge any price you want for it?

The cost to implement it may contain additional work or resources. If
you have no right to charge, then you would have to finance it another
way such as charging for time. At the end it comes to charging the real
cost one way or another (if there is no monopoly). No monopoly is also
gives way for you to have the same right to charge as the developer. ;-)
--
Saludos libres,

Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
[phone]
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a

Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.

[m***@students.turkuamk.fi]

Here's something on the subject http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

[e***@me.com]

I am not referring to if you are the developer. You should absolutely be able
profit from your own work. But why must you also give others the freedom to
profit from your work, or the freedom to strip your profits away by
distributing the work without charge? If physical goods could be copied like
software, no one would be able to make money.

Suppose that in a world where all software is free software, a person arises
whose sole skill is programming (this could easily happen). They write a
powerful, reliable, and flawless program and start selling it for a
reasonable price to make a living with their only skill. Their profits
skyrocket and immediately disappear as people start distributing the software
for free. Unable to support themselves, they commit suicide.

[o***@gmail.com]

Post by e***@me.com
Suppose that in a world where all software is free software, a person arises
whose sole skill is programming (this could easily happen). They write a
powerful, reliable, and flawless program and start selling it for a

reasonable

Post by e***@me.com
price to make a living with their only skill. Their profits skyrocket and
immediately disappear as people start distributing the software for free.
Unable to support themselves, they commit suicide.

That's an extreme, unlikely hypothetical.

First, you're assuming that the only way to make money developing software is
by distributing copies. That's not true. Today, most people who make money
developing software do it developing custom software. Selling services as a
programmer is also a perfectly legitimate business that is practiced, and
crowdfunding has potential for being used to develop new software. Why, very
recently, a Kickstarter campaign was used to fund the effort to port OpenShot
to Windows (and Mac OS X, I think).

Second, you're assuming that this developer gives up on everything and kills
himself just because he stopped making money from something. I don't know of
anyone who would do that, except the most mentally unstable teenagers on the
planet. Realistically, they would decide either that they made enough during
the time that people were paying for the copies, or that they didn't make
enough. If they decide that they made enough, they might try it again with
their next program, and if they decide that they didn't, they will abandon
the approach and try another one. Perhaps, instead, they will start offering
customization services for their software, as Richard Stallman did. Or
perhaps they will try crowdfunding for their next interesting program.

[a***@member.fsf.org]

They write a powerful, reliable, and flawless program and start selling it

for a reasonable price to make a living with their only skill.

only skill

I don't know why people still perpetuate this ridiculous fallacy. As if
people who program can ONLY program. Please. If you can't expand your skillet
to more than 1 thing in your entire life, then sad day for you. You need to
step it up and develop other skills and interests. Become any of the other
thousands of skilled professions that doesn't involve programming. Writing
good software is hard. If you have the intellect, curiosity and rigorousness
that writing good software demands, then you also have the intellect,
curiosity and rigorousness to pursue different skills and careers other than
programming.

Specialization is for insects.

[k***@gmail.com]

You are forgetting one important fact: Not everyone pays for proprietary
software. I truly doubt that there is a computer user in this world unaware
of the fact that a copy of any proprietary software can be obtained free of
charge.
Those who pay for software, pay for it willingly.

I am also convinced that in world where software is free programmers can make
a living. Did you obtain a copy of Linux for free? Ofcourse you did. But that
doesn't mean that developers weren't paid to write Linux. Red Hat pays
programmers to keep developing Linux. I'm also fairly sure that they do the
same for some GNU packages such as GCC. Don't forget that Red Hat got that
money selling the same free software they fund.

That hyptotetical talented programmer would not stop getting money. There is
no such thing as finished program, and thats why someone (Red Hat) would pay
him to keep adding new features to his program (Linux). And even if the
program is flawless (lie) I'm sure someone would be happy to employ such a
talented programmer to write new software.

[e***@me.com]

I really, really hope you didn't mean GNU/Linux.

[k***@gmail.com]

I meant exactly what I said. Linux != GNU/Linux

[e***@me.com]

Good, just making sure.

[Jason Self]

I'd argue that people aren't required to do software development as
their sole occupation anyway and that even if they try no one is
guaranteed any particular result: What if you start a company making
proprietary software and it's a complete flop? Free software doesn't
change that risk but I digress.
If people like the project they'll give money because they'll want to
see it continue. Maybe it won't not enough to become a billionaire and
maybe they'll just have to settle for "just" being a millionaire
instead. Look at Red Hat.

[j***@bluehome.net]

Post by Jason Self
Look at Red Hat.

Or MontaVista. They're somehow able to get $10,000 for a copy of something
that people can download from the internet for free.

[Jason Self]

Post by e***@me.com
I am not referring to if you are the developer. You should

absolutely be able

Post by e***@me.com
profit from your own work. But why must you also give others the

freedom to

Post by e***@me.com
profit from your work, or the freedom to strip your profits away by
distributing the work without charge? If physical goods could be

copied like

Post by e***@me.com
software, no one would be able to make money.

I think you have a very narrow view on this. In the free software
world all code is shared and re-used. Why should someone's ability to
raise funds for their work be cut off just because they happened to
re-use someone else's code in order to save time and not be forced to
reinvent the wheel? The point is to avoid "code silos."

[e***@me.com]

I think you're all focusing on my hypothetical situation, which was intended
to be merely a conjecture, and only partially to be taken seriously.

[o***@gmail.com]

http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/05/killer-of-scribes/

[e***@me.com]

I don't get it.

[o***@gmail.com]

Well, what if someone's only skill was being a scribe? How horrible that he
can't make money anymore because of printing, and he commits suicide because
he can't find another way to make money.

It's not a very close analogy (scribes became obsolete, which doesn't apply
to programming at all), but I think you get the point. Assuming it somehow
becomes impossible to make a decent amount of money from programming
(doubtful, mind you, because there are plenty of ways to make money from free
software development), the programmers can find another way to make money,
just like scribes did. That was the point ahj was making (except ahj didn't
mention scribes). There is no reason for us to tolerate something unethical
(forbidding sharing) for the purpose of giving someone an artificial method
of making money.

[e***@me.com]

Now I get it.

[e***@me.com]

Now, on the opposite end of the spectrum, just how acceptable is it for a
license to require bundling when selling, and not allow unaccompanied
distribution for a fee? The FSF mentions this as a reason that the Code
Project Open License is non-free, but several paragraphs later they say of
the OFL "Since a simple Hello World program will satisfy the requirement, it
is harmless." Before the PT fonts were released under the OFL they had a
license that was libre in all possible respects except for a clause "You may
bundle the font with commercial software, but you may not sell the fonts by
itself [sic]. They are free."

[e***@me.com]

To return to the other topic for which this thread was created, I've sent a
second letter to Canada Type, noting some other fonts in their library I
might like and also noting that I would be willing to pay any sum they might
see fit. (Can't wait to see what they say.)

[d***@mac.com]

onpon4

Check this out, I notice that you do enjoy fonts overall.

Scribes do exist such as the ones that work in any judicial court, you know
the guy that records all conversations of the court case in a type writter
and in a way lawyers are scribes. Example: my brother is a lawyer and he has
one unique font writing which is a very elegant style, his hand/font writing
has earn him recognition and high remarks from judges and colleagues. Yet, my
brother had to protect his font writing style from copy cats and had his font
writing style register legally. Even Microsoft try to buy 5 fonts from him in
1995 knowing my brother, very politely told them "get your own". Unless you
use the family name for each font, Knowing this as an example only.

Ill advise to check the Gutenberg bible font style, you might be surprise how
many people have copy that style of font writing.

You want to see some crazy font style is the Spaniard style,from the 14
century. example: Cervantes wrote the Don Quixote book awesome fonts, my aunt
use to have an original book published 1885, I used to love that book, I
believe I read it 4 times over and over again, and still remember spending
time contemplate the elegance of those fonts, is like they meant more than
just letters. Actually my cursive hand writing, is the result of practicing
by hand those fonts for many hours.

In other words, research and make your own.....


Another option, take a look at the US Constitution original document, yet no
one is authorized to replicate any font style from that particular document
because is consider US Government property. Since the invention of the
printing machines, scribes had to adapt quickly to the modern era.

Short hand writing is a form of font writing use by secretaries for taking
notes today, I learn that in high school, it helps me out in a great deal
when taking notes real fast.

Take care

[s***@web.de]

Everyone should keep in mind that the whole story about the "world without
proprietary software" is just a theoretical consideration by now.
I think it's sensible to claim that programmers can live and survive in such
a world, but things are very complex and I hate people ignoring complexity of
problems; in fact, we just don't know.
RMS sold copies of his emacs some decades ago, but this would probably not
work today, at least not in this way. Who would buy from RMS when he can
easily download a copy for free?

There is this argument that programming is not the only thing a programmer
can make money with; support is also a financial source etc.
This is true but it misses the point.
The question is: would programming be profitable anymore? And not: can
programmers find another way to get money.
One can summarize:
Free software can cost money, but no one has to pay if he doesn't want to.
Someone else can redistribute the software without charge; your neighbour can
give you the software; everything legal and just fine.
So the important question is:
Does the system work if no one is forced to pay in order to get the software
he likes?
If no:
can the system work with programmers getting money only from different things
than programming?

I don't know what the answer is.
Of course we know that free software can exist - many great examples proved
this very well.
But the question of a world containing _only_ free software is another thing.

[e***@lavabit.com]

It may only be a theoretical consideration, but it's still the right thing to
work toward. Proprietary software is unethical.

[e***@me.com]

Even if it is self-destructive, I don't think it's unethical to prevent
others from getting your work without paying the fee you charge.

[m***@students.turkuamk.fi]

You might want to check out this thread
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/what-if-we-win