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

You wouldn't steal a font

fedi.rib.gay

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 421 posts

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#401

Post by imiric »

ummonk wrote: post #399
mark-r wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USED to be a website? Aww, I did pretty well there - going to miss it.

No idea which one it was but I found this one and got a perfect score. The difference is pretty obvious... https://www.ironicsans.com/helvarialquiz/index.php

Same, 18/20 for me. The all caps on MATTEL got me, and the STAPLES one as well, for some reason.

But the differences on the lowercase "t" and "s", uppercase "g", the number 3, and both upper an lowercase "c", are obvious. Helvetica is much more refined.

There are good reasons why well designed typography is expensive. A lot of thought and effort went into designing every line and curve. Even if most people can't consciously appreciate these details, they experience it subconsciously by how the design makes them feel. This is why brand designers are well paid. Anyone can design a logo, but to make a design that transmits a specific feeling, that requires a lot of skill. And typography is a core component of this.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#402

Post by ummonk »

imiric wrote: post #401
ummonk wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea which one it was but I found this one and got a perfect score. The difference is pretty obvious... https://www.ironicsans.com/helvarialquiz/index.php

Same, 18/20 for me. The all caps on MATTEL got me, and the STAPLES one as well, for some reason. But the differences on the lowercase "t" and "s", uppercase "g", the number 3, and both upper an lowercase "c", are obvious. Helvetica is much more refined. There are good reasons why well designed typography is expensive. A lot of thought and effort went into designing every line and curve. Even if most people can't cons…

Yeah MATTEL was the one instance where the difference wasn’t clear. I still had a gut feeling but couldn’t really justify it logically like I could for the others.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#403

Post by WillAdams »

pc86 wrote: post #381
WillAdams wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ages ago, I consulted on a case where a converted font was included in a product --- it was even simpler than https://luc.devroye.org/kinch.html since no transformations were applied --- just had to figure out which version of which font editor was used to open up the font file and then which settings were used to re-generate the font in the new format used for the infringing product.

I'm not saying it's never possible in any case, just that in cases where it's not you can't prove infringement.

If a digital font file is used as a source, it's probably too much work for the thief to erase all traces of that --- whether or no it should be acceptable to re-create a typeface design w/o crediting the original designer and adhering to their intent in terms of licensing and distribution is a different discussion.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#404

Post by niij »

neilpanchal wrote: post #67
homebrewer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "peak of perfection" does not support even just European languages, not having full coverage even for Latin scripts. But it's a "love letter for the golden age of computing", and the golden age had massive problems with scripts for languages other than English, so maybe it's intentional. https://usgraphics.com/static/products/TX-02/datasheet/TX-02...

Hey, Berkeley Mono supports most Western European languages, can you tell me what's missing? I can add it. Btw, the tagline is about the aesthetics. :)

Your website is absolutely beautiful and so well laid out. The examples given really sell the font.

For someone who has never really been a font nerd and has never bought a font—yet: all the add on choices are confusing. Ligatures, I get, but the other options feel overwhelming. Perhaps I'm not quite the market.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#405

Post by xigoi »

tptacek wrote: post #158
gkoberger wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying a Michelin chef can complain about a 50x increase in the cost of truffles without negating the fact that a lot of people happily survive on ramen.

No, those things aren't comparable. Truffles have a functional role in a dish. A typeface does not have a meaningful functional role in a document, compared to the high-quality freely-available alternatives. This is like complaining about some kind of specially-carved or dyed truffle.

> A typeface does not have a meaningful functional role in a document, compared to the high-quality freely-available alternatives.

https://practicaltypography.com/why-does-typography-matter.h...

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#406

Post by viggity »

thordenmark wrote: post #396
phony-account wrote: post #24

Is this the wrong time to rant about font licensing though? I’ve always bought and paid for fonts, but as I’ve gradually transitioned to mobile app development, I one day realized that all the fonts I bought for print are now worthless to me. These crazy outdated licenses that let you print as many magazines or books you want forever, for a one-time price. But if your hobby is making apps, then suddenly the same font…

I really good font is a fine work of craftsmanship that is time consuming to make. The type designer deserves compensation for their work. There are also plenty of license free, and B-tier fonts available if you are on a tight budget.

I work in this industry, relatively new to it. There is a mind numbing amount of work that goes into font engineering.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#408

Post by wubrr »

dcow wrote: post #388
wubrr wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am rebutting what the previous commenter said, sentence by sentence (almost), I don't know why that tells you that I'm not actually thinking about what they said though. Did I misunderstand or misrepresent something they said?

Because it’s easy to respond to one-off sentences. It’s harder to respond to the substantial argument they make.

What substantial argument?

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#409

Post by kevingadd »

tasuki wrote: post #336
kevingadd wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fonts loaded on one machine are typically not loaded reliably on all machines, so you need to distribute fonts with your application. Doing this is probably a violation of the license that all those "free fonts" were distributed under, so your only options are: 1. Public Domain Fonts 2. Fonts that cost money The set of public domain fonts is pretty small and most of them are low quality - not all, thankfully - an…

What? There's an endless supply of permissively licensed fonts, eg on Google Fonts. Many of them are actually pretty good. Yes, you'll find some bad ones too.

You should carefully check the license of each font on Google Fonts. They're not all under the same license. Yes, many of them are permissively licensed, but that doesn't mean you have the right to redistribute the ttf/otf file yourself as part of an application, since you need to comply with the terms of the license as it is written.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#410

Post by wyager »

scripturial wrote: post #264
wyager wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of monospace text on the internet uses random obscure glyphs? This isn't really a practical problem.

Pretty much anyone coding in another language. Coders do sometimes buy fonts if they are into fonts and nice terminals.

To reiterate the original question: "what percentage"?
Post reply on HN