Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Source for theguardian.com

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#11

Post by oliwarner »

JorgeGT wrote: post #7

IANAL, but this seems to collide with their EULA with Commercial Type [1], since third party hosting of the font files is "strictly prohibited" and the font files are in fact all available in the repo, which certainly doesn't sound like "reasonable effort to prevent access/use by unlicensed parties". [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/88cfa609c73545085c...

Though I'll not make any judgement towards "prevent access", the main license file[0] does state:

> All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type (https://commercialtype.com/), and may not be reproduced without permission.

As a side tangent, it constantly surprises me how deep the creative industries manage to sink their claws into IP and licensing. I don't understand how artistic commissions manage to hold onto ownership. If I told my a prospective client that the websites they'd be paying me to build would forever more be —essentially— mine, they'd fire me pretty quickly. Same goes for most work product with employers.

The Guardian commissioned these faces. Why would they accept such a crappy license?

[0]: https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#13

Post by onion2k »

tomalpha wrote: post #5

The Guardian has moved to a voluntary-subscription model for revenue - a gentle nagware if you like. No adblocker-blocking and (relatively) few actual adverts on the pages. I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials, but I do respect the quality of the journalism and the fact that they are a non-profit [0] I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a…

I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy.

There's very little cost to opening it up, and a huge benefit (recruitment as you say, openness, community engagement, maybe even bug fixes..). Why not open up the code?

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#14

Post by thecatspaw »

onion2k wrote: post #13
tomalpha wrote: post #5

The Guardian has moved to a voluntary-subscription model for revenue - a gentle nagware if you like. No adblocker-blocking and (relatively) few actual adverts on the pages. I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials, but I do respect the quality of the journalism and the fact that they are a non-profit [0] I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a…

I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy. There's very little cost to opening it up, and a huge benefit (recruitment as you say, openness, community engagement, maybe even bug fixes..). Why not open up the code?

opening up publishes all your vulnerabilities, bugs, hacks and swearwords in the code as well. Thats plenty of reasons to not go open source

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#15

Post by thecatspaw »

littlestymaar wrote: post #12
duckson wrote: post #8

The docs include a recipe for Breton crêpes. :) [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/docs/99-arc...

Hilarious! What the heck is it doing here?

I prefer it over the suicide.mp3 we found in a proprietary software's code base

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#16

Post by muglug »

littlestymaar wrote: post #12
duckson wrote: post #8

The docs include a recipe for Breton crêpes. :) [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/docs/99-arc...

Hilarious! What the heck is it doing here?

The blame has it: https://github.com/guardian/frontend/commit/9194aa952c93b3fe... by https://www.kaelig.fr/

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#17

Post by JorgeGT »

oliwarner wrote: post #11
JorgeGT wrote: post #7

IANAL, but this seems to collide with their EULA with Commercial Type [1], since third party hosting of the font files is "strictly prohibited" and the font files are in fact all available in the repo, which certainly doesn't sound like "reasonable effort to prevent access/use by unlicensed parties". [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/88cfa609c73545085c...

Though I'll not make any judgement towards "prevent access", the main license file[0] does state: > All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type ( https://commercialtype.com/ ), and may not be reproduced without permission. As a side tangent, it constantly surprises me how deep the creative industries manage to sink their claws into IP and licensing. I don't understand how artistic commissions…

Being outside the business, I found it surprising as well! The fonts are named GuardianTextWeb, GuardianSansWeb, etc., suggesting to me they have been purposely commissioned by The Guardian to obtain a differentiated look and feel.

However the license is non-exclusive and revocable, and restrictive to the point that only web seems to be allowed. The fonts are indeed available for purchase: https://commercialtype.com/catalog/guardian which from the point of view of protecting the look and feel of your brand that you just commissioned seems a bit weird.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#18

Post by botverse »

matt4077 wrote: post #9
tomalpha wrote: post #5

The Guardian has moved to a voluntary-subscription model for revenue - a gentle nagware if you like. No adblocker-blocking and (relatively) few actual adverts on the pages. I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials, but I do respect the quality of the journalism and the fact that they are a non-profit [0] I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a…

> I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy. https://github.com/nytimes https://github.com/BostonGlobe https://github.com/npr & https://github.com/nprapps https://github.com/theatlantic https://github.com/wsj ... I really wish people wouldn't always assume the worst of the media. Especially when it takes about two seconds to verif…

I would recommend to double check those links to the github orgs, I’m sorry to say they are small projects. Can’t compare with publishing the whole frontend, their image managing library and their text editor.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#19

Post by maze-le »

tomalpha wrote: post #5

The Guardian has moved to a voluntary-subscription model for revenue - a gentle nagware if you like. No adblocker-blocking and (relatively) few actual adverts on the pages. I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials, but I do respect the quality of the journalism and the fact that they are a non-profit [0] I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a…

>> I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials

I really don't know why this always has to be pointed out when it comes to classic mass media. I would say: "Good thing" because if you'd always agree, they would be doing a lousy job. Newspapers shouldn't be worldview-repeaters, especially in the op-eds. Lots of people look for validation of their already existing worldviews instead of critically reflecting other opinions.

Post reply on HN