text:
The Kernel Configuration and Build Process
To add a new configuration option, simply add new lines to an existing Kconfig file, in the same location as a related configuration option. For example, if a new USB sound device driver is written for the ALSA sound system, it would go into the sound/usb directory, and the sound/usb/Kconfig file would be added. This new device driver controls the mythical FooBar USB speaker device. It depends on having the CONFIG_SND and CONFIG_USB options enabled in addition to the CONFIG_SND_USB_AUDIO option, as the new driver uses some functions found in that driver. The new configuration option should be placed after the SND_USB_AUDIO option but before the closing endmenu command, and it would look something like:
config SND_USB_FOOBAR tristate "USB FooBar speaker device driver" depends SND_USB_AUDIO help Say Y here if you want to use FooBar USB speaker device. This code is also available as a module (= code which can be inserted in and removed from the running kernel whenever you want). The module will be called usbfoobar.o.
This option will now show up when the SND_USB_AUDIO option is selected (Figure 4).
The kernel is built with a system of individual makefiles that are all linked together when the kernel is built, forming a large makefile. The individual makefiles do not look like any standard makefile, but instead follow a special format that is unique to the kernel build process. The makefile needs to build only the necessary files, depending on the configuration options enabled, in the proper format (as modules or built in to the kernel). As an example, drivers/usb/misc/Makefile in the 2.5.59 kernel release looks like:
# # Makefile for the rest of the USB drivers # (the ones that don't fit into any other # categories) # obj-$(CONFIG_USB_AUERSWALD) += auerswald.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_BRLVGER) += brlvger.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_EMI26) += emi26.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_LCD) += usblcd.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_RIO500) += rio500.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_SPEEDTOUCH) += speedtch.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_TEST) += usbtest.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_TIGL) += tiglusb.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_USS720) += uss720.o speedtch-objs := speedtouch.o atmsar.o
The line:
obj-$(CONFIG_USB_LCD) += usblcd.obuilds the usblcd.c file into a module if the CONFIG_USB_LCD configuration option is set to m. Otherwise, it is built into the kernel directly if that configuration option is set to y. This step is all that is necessary to add to a kernel makefile if the module is made from only a single .c file.
If the driver consists of multiple .c files, the name of the files needs to be listed on separate lines, along with the name of the module that this driver is called. In the previous example file, this listing of file and driver names looks like:
obj-$(CONFIG_USB_SPEEDTOUCH) += speedtch.o
speedtch-objs := speedtouch.o atmsar.oThe first line controls whether the speedtch module is built. If it is, the line indicates whether it is compiled into the kernel or stands as a module. The second line explains that the speedtouch.c and atmsar.c files will be built into .o files and then linked together into the speedtch.o module.
In older kernels, if a file exported symbols, it needed to be explicitly mentioned in the kernel makefiles. In 2.5 and later kernels, that mention is no longer necessary.
To add a new driver to the kernel build process, a single line needs to be added if the driver is contained within a single file. Based on the previous example of the FooBar USB speaker device, the line:
obj-$(CONFIG_SND_USB_FOOBAR) += usbfoobar.o
is added to sound/usb/Makefile.
If the driver is contained in two files, such as foobar1.c and foobar2.c, an additional line needs to be added:
usbfoobar-objs := foobar1.o foobar2.o
The kernel configuration and build process in the 2.5 kernel is much simpler and more flexible than in the previous kernel versions. Thanks go to Roman Zippel and Kai Germaschewski for doing the work to make it easier for kernel developers to focus on writing code and not have to worry about the intricacies of the kernel build process.
A good resource for more information on the specifics of the Kbuild process is available from Sam Ravnborg, at marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104162417329638.
- What continuous engineering is
- How to continuously improve complex product designs
- How to anticipate and respond to markets and clients
- How to get the most out of your engineering resources
Sponsored by IBM
Learn to:
- Define service virtualization
- Select the most beneficial services to virtualize
- Improve your traditional approach to testing
- Deliver higher-quality software faster
Sponsored by IBM
Trending Topics
Free DevOps eBooks, Videos, and more!
Regardless of where you are in your DevOps process, Linux Journal can help!
We offer here the DEFINITIVE DevOps for Dummies, a mobile Application Development Primer, and advice & help from the expert sources like:
- Forrester
- Gartner
- Linux Journal
|Users, Permissions and Multitenant Sites
|Mar 26, 2015
|New Products
|Mar 24, 2015
|Flexible Access Control with Squid Proxy
|Mar 23, 2015
|Solving ODEs on Linux
|Mar 19, 2015
|DevOps: Everything You Need to Know
|Mar 19, 2015
|Tighten Up SSH
|Mar 18, 2015
- New Products
- Users, Permissions and Multitenant Sites
- Flexible Access Control with Squid Proxy
- Security in Three Ds: Detect, Decide and Deny
- High-Availability Storage with HA-LVM
- Tighten Up SSH
- DevOps: Everything You Need to Know
- Solving ODEs on Linux
- Non-Linux FOSS: MenuMeters
- diff -u: What's New in Kernel Development


text:
Hotel Argo(3 stars)Chalkidiki 63077 Siviri View on map
Show on map:
- Hotel
- Things to do and see
Hotel review overview
Relaxing family vacation with children
- Recommended hotel
- Families
- Translated
- Beach holiday
- August 2013
Familiar hotel with comfort factor, many long-standing regular guests, very friendly staff, lovely courtyard, small but very clean pool with a paddling pool. Our children were part of a big happy caboodle and we adults relaxing on the sun loungers and the hotel is always open and bar. read hotel review
Siviri hotel argo thumbs up
- Recommended hotel
- Couples
- Translated
- Proof of booking
- Beach holiday
- June 2013
We loved this year the holiday Greece really loved it. For us it was the 1. time in Greece and we were very satisfied. The beach was about 200 meters away and the pool on the doorstep. Friendly and helpful in the hotel! read hotel review
Information about Hotel Argo
Hotel Information
hotel.de *
Business hours of reception: from 09:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m.from 05:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
* Neither HolidayCheck nor the provider assumes liability for the accuracy and completeness of the content displayed above. Please take note of the hotel description of the respective operator and bear in mind that the services included in an offer may differ from the catalog description presented here. We are obliged to offer solely those services available at the time of booking as shown on the booking form. © 2013 Giata
Hotel amenities
- Hotel safe
- Internet
- Central heating
- Air conditioning
- Free parking
- Car park
Room amenities
- Phone
- Satellite TV
- Minibar
- Safe
- Balcony
- Bathroom
- Shower
- Wake up call/Alarm clock
- Hotel bar
- Catering service
A choice of sports
- Outdoor pool
Other hotel information
- City hotel
- Early check in
- Late check out
- Cash payment
- Car hire
- Wifi
- Free Wifi access included
Nearby - Hotels and Things to do
- Hotels
- Things to do & See

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Fault Tolerance and Resilience: Meanings, Measures and Assessment
Free registration required
Executive Summary
In science and engineering, words may be re-assigned technical meanings that are more specific than their meanings in ordinary usage. Examples include "Reliability" and "Dependability". This practice is useful for more precise reasoning about complex problems involving subtle differences between concepts; but new specialised words are also sometimes adopted for the purpose of calling attention to problems or viewpoints that are seen as being neglected by prevailing attitudes. The two phenomena interact and may create difficulties in identifying the concepts of interest for research and practice.
- Format: PDF
- Size: 817.6 KB


text:
Zach Galifianakis: Jen Aniston Nixed Brad Pitt Look-alike for Skit
- Photo: Gary Lewis/Retna Ltd.1 of 16
- Photo: JKE/ZDS/WENN2 of 16
- Photo: Carlo Allegri/Invision/AP3 of 16
- Photo: Eric Charbonneau/WireImage.com4 of 16
- Photo: AP/WENN5 of 16
- Photo: Ben Margot/Invision/AP6 of 16
- Photo: Carolyn Kaster/Invision/AP7 of 16
- Photo: James Devaney/WireImage.com8 of 16
- Photo: IGNAT/Bauer-Griffin9 of 16
- Photo: Humberto Carreno/StarTraks10 of 16
- Photo: Justin Campbell/StarTraks11 of 16
- Photo: Matt Smith/Pacific Coast News12 of 16
- Photo: Warner Bros.13 of 16
- Photo: Anonymous/Invision/AP14 of 16
- Photo: Warner Bros.15 of 16
- Prev
Jennifer Aniston is long over her split from Brad Pitt -- and according to Zach Galifianakis, she has no interest in taking a walk down memory lane.
During the New Yorker Festival in New York City Saturday, the Hangover star revealed that the 42-year-old actress wasn't keen on his idea to use a Pitt look-alike for his Between Two Ferns comedy segment on Funny or Die.
VIDEO: Jen opens up about life without Brad
"I had found this guy [in our hotel] who looked exactly like Brad Pitt. I wanted to use that in some way," Galifianakis, 42, recalled. "I said, 'Jennifer, I have this guy who looks like Brad Pitt. I want to make it seem like I think it's him.'"
PHOTOS: Jen and Brad, the way they were
"She looked at me like, 'What the f--k?'" an embarrassed Galifianakis admitted. "And I totally agreed with her. How rude of me to do that! Why would she want to talk about that? She get inundated with that sh-t all the time. I totally understood."
A dejected Galifianakis then met with the look-alike to "tell him sorry that we couldn't do the bit."
"People are pretty game, usually," Galifianakis said of his guests on Between Two Ferns. "It's a fun, stupid thing to do."
PHOTOS: Jen's rocky romantic history
After Aniston nixed his original idea, Galifianakis enlisted former MTV reality star Tila Tequila, 29, to appear in the skit. During the four-minute clip, Galifianakis made it clear that he favored Tequila, prompting Aniston to (jokingly) storm off.
Get more Us! Follow us on Twitter, Friend us on Facebook, Subscribe to Us Weekly
Get out the vote
- button.LOL
- button.AWW
- button.OMG
- button.FAIL
Most Watched on Wonderwall
Throwback Pics
From Jennifer Lopez to Reese Witherspoon, check out these priceless red carpet throwback pictures!Watch Video »
Kids' Choice
Check out all the stars on the red carpet at the 2015 Kids' Choice Awards hosted by Wonderwall's Kirby Kristen.Watch Video »
OMG Celeb Fashion
Check out Jennifer Lawrence, January Jones, and Miley Cyrus' style statements on this week's OMG Celeb Fashion.Watch Video »
Fashion Offenders
Miley Cyrus, Nikki Reed, and Jennifer Lawrence all get an F on this week's Fashion Offenders.Watch Video »
Bye Bye Zayn
Get the scoop on 1D's huge, heartbreaking news on Replay hosted by Wonderwall's Kirby Kristen.Watch Video »
DIY Celeb Makeup
Tune into our first episode of "DIY Celeb Makeup" as we show you how to recreate Blake Lively's peachy glow.Watch Video »


text: The LED LENSER K2 LED Flashlight is a compact and relatively powerful anodized aluminum LED light small enough to fit on your keychain. It has a white LED that produces an output of 25 lumens with a beam distance of up to 66'. The flashlight is also durable with an IPX4 water resistance to protect it from the occasional drips or splashes of water. It turns on and off through simply twisting the bezel and runs on four AG13 batteries. The K2 even comes with a keyring.


text: Word of the Day – Cloying By Lauren Bigica April 7, 2014 6:43 AM Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Southern Stock\Getty Images Today's word of the day is: Cloying Dictionary.com defines cloying as: adjective causing or tending to cause disgust or aversion through excess: a perfume of cloying sweetness. overly ingratiating or sentimental. Filed Under: Cloying, Definitions, Dictionary, Word of the Day Category: Bob & Marianne in the Morning, Word of the Day Share on Facebook Share on Twitter More Leave a comment Send to a friend! Print this page Pin it! Reddit This! Share on Tumblr! Best of WOBM AM 1160 & 1310 Recommended For You Around the Web


text:
Golf Ball Lamp
This is what I put in the jar lamp I made last week
I used golf balls, tees, pencils, and green paper shreds.
Here is a link that might be useful: Red Mommy Crafts
Great for a den or kid's room too!! Came out nice! Jan
That is really cute.. sure does get the ideas coming to my head on what all you could put in the jar.. different things.. hummmmmm... seems like they use to do something like this with some kind of faces made out of stuffing and stockings...all stuffed in the jar.. my mind is a blank on what they called them.. but I remember it was cute.. kids room could have all kinds of small stuffed animals, older kids room all kinds of rock music items.. sewers could use , thread, needles, pins, fabric, tape measures.. etc. gosh.. you could just go wild... wonder how dried herbs would look.. humm okay, I will stop .. and get back to work.. have a great day.. and your did a great job on the lamp..


text:
I haven't played this game for a long time! My friend James picked out 'a few' items for me to get messy with to make sure I get totally trashed!...
Cassandra's Dungeon Gunging
Get Full ACCESS to all Messy Jessie's content:
Cassandra has her turn on the wall and it's Jessie who is dishing out the gunge! Jessie starts by splattering Cassandra with a thick grey goo followed by chocolate poured over her lovely red hair! Jessie adds custard, treacle and honey to make a nice sticky mess. To finish off Jessie smooshes a pie into Cassandra's boobs and then pies her square in the face!
Movie file size:99MB


text:
Information Links
'Connecting thought-leaders with senior marcomms professionals through real insight'
Brand Republic Insight creates and hosts insightful and inspiring content, in the form of surveys, expert reports, webcasts and bespoke events, available for free to our Brand Republic audience.
The Brand Republic Insight team conducts tailored research with in-house brand marketers and agencies alike to ensure our insight is exclusive, fresh and up to date.
Our content and events feature key industry experts and showcase innovative formats. Previous work includes radio-show debates, live streamed Question Time style TV shows with a studio audience, and exclusive dinner debates.
Online event: 19th to 21st May
Digital innovation, future thinking and growth trends
We're excited to launch our inaugural Brand Republic event, a three day online celebration of digital and marketing innovation. Our custom-built online platform will host live webcasts, videos, downloadable case studies, expert reports, infographics and much more. With our bespoke playlist function and live blog, your experience will be tailored and personalised to your needs.
Registration is now open! Sign up now to access the programme, view the live blog and join the conversation.
Will Hayward,
VP Advertising,
Paula Costa,
L'Oreal Brasil
"Brands as content makers"
Get involved
Brand Republic Insight has works with industry leading brands, including IBM, HP, Trustpilot, RedEye, Facebook, Microsoft, and many more.
If you are interested in getting involved as a partner, please email head of content Georgia Cockerell (email@example.com).
Select expert reports
How to be Successful in Mobile Advertising
1. What the growth of mobile means for you
2. The myths surrounding mobile marketing
3. What should be on a successful mobile campaign checklist
Sponsored by Quantcast
Data: What Do You Really Need?
In this expert report, nine different consumer touchpoints (from desktop websites to transactional engagements) are assessed to see how they can deliver maximum value when it comes to data capture. This is followed by a guide of how to safeguard, prepare and employ this data to ensure the greatest returns.
Promotions & Partnerships Manager £40k + excellent benefits package Chessington World of Adventures, Chessington, London (Greater)
Brand Manager Competitive salary + excellent benefits package Chessington World of Adventures, Chessington, London (Greater)
group account director > AMBITIOUS BOUTIQUE to £75k + bens collectivo, London (Central), London (Greater)
Deputy Editor - International Content Agency - London £30000 - £35000 per annum + great benefits Major Players, London
Integrated Marketing Specialist- Leading Global B2B Business up to £35k + benefits ADLIB, Bath Avon
Business Director £50000.00 - £60000.00 per annum Dynamic New Alliances, City of London
Just published
England cricket team's demise holds a warning for adland
What does Google's shift towards mobile-friendly rankings mean to your business?
Eclipses, moon shots and giant outdoor leaps
Which brand won April Fool's Day?
Real World, Fake Ads: Advertising needs to embrace reality
April Fool's Day ad round-up
April Fool's Day ad round-up
BuzzFeed hires Agostinho as first client services director


text:
Your cart is empty!
For centuries Bai Mu Dan tea (also known as Peony White) was an extremely rare tea once reserved for Chinese royalty. Prince of Peace Organic Peony White Tea, considered one of the premium grades of white tea, is made of young leaves and buds from the Camellia Sinensis plant, hand picked during the fresh spring harvest in Chinas Fujian province. The white, silver-ish leaves give Peony White tea its name. With minimal processing.
Supplement Facts:
100% Organic Peony White Tea.
Use one bag per cup. Pour hot water on tea bag and let it steep for 3-5 minutes before drinking.
It is a great tea as well as good for health and good taste. I am definitely impressed with this tea. It make my family fresh and awaken. I highly recommend this product to those who are able to use herbal treatments.
It is a great delicious tea as well as good for health. It makes me feel fresh and awaken. My whole family like to start the day with drinks of this tea. I Would recommend to everyone.
Prince of Peace Premium Pu Erh Tea - 100 bags
Our Price:$5.11
Laci Le Beau super dieters tea bags, cinnamon spice - 60 ea
Our Price:$8.47
Prince of Peace Organic Oolong Tea - 100 bags
Our Price:$5.80
Good Earth vanilla chai tea, Black Tea, Spices and Vanilla - 18 Tea Bags
Our Price:$3.32
Alvita caffeine Free saint john's wort tea bags - 24 ea
Our Price:$4.78
Alvita caffeine free ginger peppermint root tea bags - 24 ea
Our Price:$4.38


text:
New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
If you were to make a manifesto for the EULA, what would you include? I'm talking about the basic EULA, not the multi-server, multi-user, EULA. Do you think manifesto too strong a word? I don't, I want to make a statement. Do any of you really read the EULA before licensing type? Do any of you really NOT license type from a given foundry because of their EULA? Which foundry? Don't be shy. Let's dish!
Just wanted to toss this idea into the pit and see what came back.
How about The End User's Manifesto?
I think "EULA Manifesto" is too unspecific. Who is manifesting? Users, designers, or producers? I'm assuming that you are speaking from an end user's point of view. If I'm wrong, then maybe the "Licensing Manifesto"? Or the "Pay-Us-What-Is-Due-To-Us Manifesto"? (for foundries/designers, respectively).
Assumption correct, Dan. I'm speaking for the End User. But, Isn't it End User License Agreement? I would think that End User is implied. Fair enough. But that still leaves the other questions.
I think that End Users have very specific demands (or at least wishes) for the way EULAs be written. If they were to have a manifesto, that would express these, right? So it is their manifesto, and not a EULA manifesto.
But this is really your manifesto, isn't it? I shouldn't try to twist you into anything ;-)
:^o Busted! Yes, it is my manifesto. But, I am hoping other end user's will share their opinions and realities.
> How about The End User's Manifesto?
That sounds just right. What we should be paying attention to.
Of course, most foundries are protecting themselves with their EULA, which is as it should be. The foundry is making explicit their demands of the end user.
In my opinion, it doesn't hurt for the foundry to reflect the reality on the ground. (Many foundries will disagree with me.) The EULA for Village was written to protect the foundry, the end user, and the designer of the typeface. The language is simple and clear, and not legalistic, and above all it acknowledges that this kind of agreement is "faith-based". As a small foundry, we can't afford to prosecute those who infringe the agreement; we therefore ask that customers agree to comply with the terms of the agreement to the best of their ability, and in good faith.
The full text of the EULA follows. I'd love to hear feedback and comments. Especially from you, Tiffany. Does this EULA do anything for you as an end user?
/ / / / /
Village End User License Agreement / version 1.2, July 2005
This is an agreement between you, the purchaser, and Village Type & Design LLC (Village). In accepting the terms of this agreement, you acknowledge understanding and promise to comply with its terms. If you do not accept the terms, please do not complete the purchase transaction.
What you are purchasing from Village is the license to use digital typeface software - hereafter "fonts" - on a certain number of computers within your organization; you are not purchasing the copyright to the design of the fonts, but the rights to use the fonts.
If you are purchasing 1 license, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 4 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 2 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 10 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 3 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 25 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 4 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 50 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 5 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 100 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 10 licenses, you may use the fonts on a maximum of 500 computers within your organization; If you are purchasing 20 licenses, you may use the fonts on an unlimited number of computers within your organization. You can purchase additional licenses at any time, which grant you the rights to use the fonts on additional computers, as noted above.
You can make archival copies of the fonts for your own purposes. You will not distribute the fonts to people outside of your organization. A copy of the fonts may be sent as part of a file release to a prepress bureau, if absolutely necessary. The fonts can be embedded in other software files, such as Portable Document Format (PDF) or Flash files, but you will take all reasonable care to embed the fonts in such a way that they cannot be extracted from the files you create.
You may modify the fonts for your own purposes, but the copyright remains with Village, and the number of computers covered by the license remains the same. You may not commission a third party to modify the fonts without first gaining permission from Village. You may not sell or give away modified versions of the fonts.
We have done everything we can to produce our fonts to the highest and most up-to-date technical standards, and we test the fonts extensively in the latest versions of technically-compliant applications. If you do experience any difficulties with our fonts, we will do everything that we can to work with you to resolve any issues. If, after we have worked to resolve any technical issues, you are still not satisfied with our product, we will be pleased to refund your money, which shall be the limit of our liability in this transaction.
We grant the rights of use of our fonts to you in good faith, and request that you promise to adhere to the terms of this agreement to the best of your ability, and in good faith.
Chester, what an incredibly reasonable EULA.
I don't want people to think that I'm slowly trying to convince foundries to change at their core(s). If there could be some sort of standardization, I would be for that. However, some things which Chester/Village have has allowed would probably never happen on other foundries EULA.
I blush.
Tiffany, I'm sure that there are foundries out there who would find the Village EULA to be too reasonable and permissive. As a recovering graphic designer I am well aware of the way things work out in the world, and I felt that our EULA should reflect that experience.
Retail type design is a gamble: type designers work on types for months or years, getting them just right aesthetically and technically, in the hope that they will make money from sales for years to come. We invest in time and hope for return on investment in the form of money. (This is very similar to artists and writers, except we small guys never get advances.) The end user most likely doesn't know this. Readers of Typophile probably do, but they're in the minority.
Many graphic designers use their fonts illegally, either because they have not licensed them at all, they are using them more widely than their licenses allow, or they are embedding or doing other things the licenses don't allow. The huge majority of these people didn't read the EULA, just as they didn't read the EULA for their page layout software, or the privacy statement on the back of their credit card bill. People are immune to legal documents; they click the "Agree" button automatically, never intending to follow the agreement: they don't even know what they're agreeing to.
My hope is that by simplifying our EULA people will actually read it. And that by making it easier to actually comply with its terms, people will uphold their end of the agreement.
At Thirstype, I once devised a really complex sliding pricing table for multiple-user licensing. It was a logirithmic nautilus affair, and was hard for purchasers to swallow. We would often get calls from people wanting to license a font for, say, 8 computers, but once they learned the price they changed their minds and would only license the font for one computer. If our licensing was more reasonable, customers would have been more willing to ante up for the correct licensing for their needs. And hopefully they would respect us for understanding their situation.
This is what I was thinking in drawing up the Village EULA and licensing table. I wanted them to reflect the way that designers actually use type. Type publishers just don't have the time to go around enforcing the correct licensing of their types, so we have to place our trust and faith in our customers. We have to believe that they will try their hardest to follow the terms of the agreement, that they will purchase the right number of licenses for the number of computers on which they plan to install the fonts, and that they will try not to let the fonts loose.
As for an End User Manifesto... I think it's a good idea. There are too many EULAs out there which are egregious in some or all of their stipulations. Should one cross one's fingers while clicking "Agree", or should one cancel one's order/installation, etc.?
Your EULA is what I, as a user, want.
I _do_ read EULAs. I won't buy fonts that forbid embedding in PDFs - it's not worth it to me to buy a font if I can't send a client a PDF proof, and besides, I don't want to keep track of which ones are forbidden, so I just won't buy them.
And modifications:
Just yesterday I was going to buy Monticello from Linotype, until I noticed that the EULA doesn't allow modifications. Now, the Linotype EULA offered at MyFonts does allow modification, but Monticello isn't offered there. It's a pain.
It's a pain, especially now, as we hover halfway between OpenType and Type 1. If I buy Monticello (type one only), I can't combine the smallcaps with the roman into OT for convenience in InDesign. The fractions are a separate font. How...quaint.
Meanwhile, I have FontFont's Absara Sans OT. I'd like to can get at the smallcaps to use on a form in FileMaker, but that isn't possible in FileMaker without rearranging the font.
Now, I have a nice guide put out by FontShop Canada some time ago: "FontShop's Guide to Legal Typeface Use". It states the "most font manufactures will allow you the right to produce a modified version." It then goes on to give an example: producing swash caps for Baby Teeth, they suggest, would be all right as long as everyone involved is within the EULA for the original.
So, I can just go ahead and rearrange the position of the small caps in Absara, right? NO! The FontFont's EULA requires me to obtain _written permission_ first. I have asked, and Danny Dawson is looking into it for me, but my inquiry was made a couple of weeks ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if I have to wait a few more weeks to get an answer.
Surely this isn't good for me, or profitable for FontShop.
Will I buy from FontFont again? Probably, especially if they solve my problem. Will I consider the added hassle when deciding between a FontShop face and, say, one from Village or ShinnType? For sure.
I know that all designers are free to set whatever conditions they want on their work, and it's up to me to make my decision based on these conditions.
If more people read the EULAs, and took them to heart, the marketplace might function properly. EULAs that allowed me to actually USE the fonts would boost sales, and other designers would follow suit.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that many buyers blithely ignore the EULA and make their purchases without reference to them, and make use of the fonts outside of the EULA. There's no reasonable possibility that LinoType is ever going to know if someone slipped a couple of the nut fractions into the roman cut of Monticello, and most designers wouldn't even know (or care) that they had broken the EULA if they did so.
I, on the other hand, end up feeling like a sucker for abiding by it.
"I won't buy fonts that forbid embedding in PDFs - it's not worth it to me to buy a font if I can't send a client a PDF proof, and besides, I don't want to keep track of which ones are forbidden, so I just won't buy them."
That is the crux of it for me as well. I password protect the PDFs before I send them to anybody.
I, on the other hand, end up feeling like a sucker for abiding by it
That's a pretty common feeling for people who abide by the rules when so many around them don't; however, it's generally better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.
swash caps for Baby Teeth
I want it.
It seems I'm not the only one that feels somewhat penalized. In development, I can prepare many PDFs. Taking each one and re-opening in Acrobat to add password protection takes real time. I feel like I spend increasingly more time trying to keep my end of the deal. I also don't stray much from very commonly available type with my lower end clients because of the hassle.
This makes me think of what people say about a police state, that you craft enough laws that everyone is in violation of a few at any given time.
I think this thread and others are a testament to the fact that all the efforts to protect the type sellers and designers are creating a drag on the industry. I find it odd that as the promise of technology has paid off, the time saved having functioning hardware and software can be spent fussing with EULAs and patching up PDFs to prevent font theft. I don't even know how to pull a font out of a PDF. Now I feel I should figure out how it is done so I can best try to prevent it. The burden is on the honest, which doesn't seem fair. But then again, what's fair?
Which EULA's require password protection of PDF's? I can't recall seeing this before. Not mentioned at all in the bible... http://fontlab.wikidev.net/Image:Interrobang2-EULA-chart.gif
Cheers, Si
OH NO! That isn't the bible, Si, I've been told by numerous foundries that there are now errors and mistakes because they have changed or Nathan and I misunderstood the EULA.
I would also be curious to know who requires this assanine requirement.
Explain embedding. Maybe I'm off on a tangent.
Font embedding is an Acrobat option that lets you include the fonts used in the document within the PDF. Foundries have EULA restictions around the embedding their fonts, as well as the distribution of the PDF that include their fonts. However, I've not seen a font EULA require that a PDF be password protected - although they might exist. But if you're not obligated to pass-word protect why are you doing it?
Cheers, Si
I was under the impression password protection was the only way to limit the editing of a PDF. I may have wrongly assumed this was associated with preventing extraction of the font data.
Following your link Si, I notice the Adobe restrictions listed "additional license available for documents that are editable", and "technical restrictions such as print & preview only".
I've used the password function to prevent editing of the doc. etc. for various reasons, but one of those reasons is usually associated with the EULA and trying to protect the font from theft. I've had PDFs sent to print without my knowledge without full res. images.
Anyway, I'll look at Acrobat with more depth and get up to speed before I rant anymore.
Embedding is a problem word as it can be in reference to PDF and/or formats similar to SWF. I do think these are two different kinds of embedding, but I wonder if foundries see embedding as a value add when used in SWF and so reason they should be able to get more money. (That could also be a question.)
I appreciate, as a user, that Chester, you and Village, have approached this with new thought and reason. You are right most of the time people, even I, click agree without thinking. Bad habits die hard. There are basic uses which designers hope they can do with there fonts. Your EULA, Chester, seems to make sense in that maybe designers will meet you half-way and will read your EULA.
What are those basic things we, designers, need to be able to do with our fonts when we license them?
- Print: I have several printers in my office. But, according to some EULAs I have to choose a printer. This seems antiquated.
- Embed for proofing and service bureau output.
- Archive
- Modify: At my own risk. This one isn't so important to me, but John does make a good case for it. My situation is such that I wouldn't trust myself to modify the font. I'd rather have the foundry do that for me so if something is wrong I can talk to them.
- Transferability: This is important to me. (Read below)
- More than 1 user, at least 2: I have no idea how to rationalize this beyond my own personal experience as someone in a small office.
What about resale? If I were to create a book, for online sale, as a PDF. Is it reasonable that foundries charge extra for this? Should their be a resale EULA? Or is this yet another case of trying to get us to pay more? I think it is fair. But, what do you think?
I'd be interested to actually see someone crack a PDF and find out how useful the font is once cracked. It seems to me that those who can crack open a PDF to get a font aren't designers but bored geeks out to prove something.
It seems to me that Chester, you, are trying to infuse trust into your EULA. I appreciate that. This is not to say that I don't find trust in other EULAs.
There are two people in my office that might be considered "designers". I use quotes because he is more or less in charge of production. However, when I license type from a foundry, such a The Font Bureau, I have to make sure that the other "designer" doesn't copy the fonts off of my machine as I only license them for my machine. I also pay for the licenses myself with the understand, from all of the foundries from whom I license, that I will take the fonts with me when I leave. Am I creating a nightmare for them? Probably. But, I've taken the time to create relationships with these foundries based on trust and common understanding. It needs to be said that I have searched his hard drive and have deleted fonts that I know he shouldn't have. I feel a little guilty, but I doubt he even notices. I'm the police in my office. I take the steps necessary to respect my associates and friends.
Another tangent. If more people actually took time to create relationships with the foundries, and vice versa, I think more people would find themselves wanting to abide by the rules.
Should I be speaking to the technical forum at ATypI? Or, am I already talking to the converted? This is, in a nutshell, what I am trying to figure out.
> I was under the impression password protection was the only way to limit the editing of a PDF. I may have wrongly assumed this was associated with preventing extraction of the font data.
For TTF and OTF's the 'print and preview' restriction is encoded in the font itself, and Acrobat will respect that setting. For Type 1 fonts, perhaps jumping through those hoops might be the only option to stay within the EULA - that's a bit annoying. In my world I don't have to deal with Type 1, so things are somewhat less complicated.
>Should I be speaking to the technical forum at ATypI? Or, am I already talking to the converted? This is, in a nutshell, what I am trying to figure out.
Yes! There will be people there who will benefit from this, especially in the context of the other talks lined up for Thursday morning.
Cheers, Si
Did you guys know that the Emigre EULA fobids you to send your service bureau a file containing converted-to-outlines of their fonts? That's gotta be a really good example of either monumental hubris, or engrained idiocy. Or both. This is definitely even worse than any no-mod clause. And I wonder what it says about making a logo from their letterforms... It should just come out and say: "If you think about not giving us more money, you thereby owe us twice that amount."
To be fair, their EULA says nothing about outlines specificially, as I would use the phrase "turn the type to outlines". Could others read it and maybe help clarify. It could be that I am misunderstanding their use.
Number 6 says you can't make EPS files.
Type designers can set the embedding bit in TTFs to one of four options. These options affect how you can use and share a font from a license standpoint. The option in Acrobat to embed fonts is more of a toggle button, and the embedding rights in the font need to agree with it:
1. Downloadable: Anyone can squeeze the fonts out of a PDF and install them on their machine for unlimited use in other docs
2. Editable: The whole (not subsetted) font is embedded in the PDF, enabling co-authors to edit the file but not download it
3. View and Print: Subsetted fonts are embeddable in PDFs for distribution, but no editing is possible
4. Restricted: Font can't be embedded, so fonts revert to system or substitution fonts when PDF is shared.
Obviously the first is horrible for a type designer, and the last is horrible for the document user and author.
The term 'embedding' for fonts needs a qualifier to discuss meaningfully.
Adobe allows downloadable embedding in all its new font products. Adobe's main business is Acrobat. See?
> Adobe allows downloadable embedding
I think you mean editable. The point you make is interesting and reminds me of something Bruno said at TypeCon about foundries basing their output device restrictions on Adobe's font EULA. Seems odd that any foundry would today follow the lead of a software vendor (especially one selling font-related apps, tools and technology) when setting embedding bits and writing licenses.
Cheers, Si
Hrant, to your point on article 6, the sentence that follows this restriction has more to do with article 9 where Emigre states they won't be held responsible for somebody using their fonts or derivative works for fitness for a particular purpose . . .
Imagine an ad agency uses an Emigre font or creates EPS outlines from an Emigre font and runs an ad campagin for a major client like MegaFlicks in a national campaign and it reads in the paper as MegaF*cks and the agency gets fired and blames it on the font rather poor art direction and decides to sue Emigre. Legally, Emigre would still be on the hook for this unless articles 6 and 9 were in their EULA.
It's a totally unlikely scenario, but the language is clear that there is no guarantee that font software licensed to an end user is guaranteed to work for any specific purpose. I believe this is one of those misunderstood passages that comes off as 'license everything from us or else' . . .
On the flip side of the coin, lets say one of the many Digital Scrapbookers (the fastest growing new trend) decides it's OK to make a digital alphabet from an Emigre font and resells it for $6 for a set of .EPS letters. This becomes a derivative work which is being resold and redistributed as software and for all intents and purposes violates the EULA to say the least . . .
I'm not sure Emigre's EULA is that dogmatic, but it does in very general terms create enough of a statement to the end user that should they need to bring suit to get them to stop selling these digital alphabets, they have a strong case to do so with . . .
Think of a EULA like a 3 year-old child . . . If you don't specifically say 'NO' or 'DON'T DO THAT', the child assumes the answer to every question is 'YES' or 'YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION' - And make no mistake, most end users are very generous in their assumptions about what is allowed and what is not.
At least twice a week I am pleased to get questions from folks wondering if their use falls under our standard EULA and I make sure to answer them thoroughly . . .
Also, I'm not inclined to debate Emigre's EULA point by point, but I prefer to explain to the best of my understanding as to what each passage means to both the foundry and the end user. Often times from what I read about EULAs on boards, it does come off as an us vs. them kind of deal when in reality it's more like defining the terms of a relationship between two parties kind of like a pre-nupt.
As a foundry owner I feel responsible for defining this, else its my own fault if I don't provide any information on what the purchase price entitles you to. And, for any fonts that do NOT have EULAs, many of them end up on CDs for sale at eBay for $15 and the creator is often none the wiser that somebody else may be profiting off of their work, EVEN if the creator intended that nobody should pay for it and distributed it as freeware to the masses.
So I guess what I'm saying in not so many words is that the buyer and the seller need a EULA. How clear or restrictive it is, is solely the responsibility of the foundry and as the creator of the products they are selling they have the ultimate last word in how they wish their products be used.
Here is an interesting snippet from the House Industries Vector Image EULA that demonstrates how specific a foundry can define their use:
'If images featuring a person will be used in connection with unflattering or controversial subject matter, or used to imply connection to or endorsement of a product, the image must be accompanied by a statement that states the person is a model used for illustrative pruposes only.'
My 2¢
Stuart :D
Stuart, you've thought a lot more about this than I have - thank you for elaborating on how complex this can be. But the bottom line is that a designer* is forbidden from carrying out a routine, legitimate and indispensable activity. A foundry's liability is one thing, imposing hyper-restrictive blanket requirements is another; as I've expressed before, I think all unreasonable demands do is encourage bad behavior - they don't actually stop much. Also, it seems to me that EULAs often leverage over-simplification to create an intimidating aura of ambiguity that seems to serve only the foundry - but ends up leaving a bad impressions with the user. The fact that section 9 is in all-caps is a clue as to what's really going on.
* Who even bothers reading the thing.
> Think of a EULA like a 3 year-old child
To me it seems a lot more like a nasty, slick, middle-aged lawyer.
Who writes this stuff, anyway? Come on.
> most end users are very generous in their assumptions
> about what is allowed and what is not.
End users who bother taking a EULA seriously should be treated with respect - not like this. And end users who don't, you have to learn to ignore.
I agree you've got some good points here Hrant. The question is, how can one craft a EULA that reads at an end user 'understandable' level yet has enough weight to hold up in a court of law if need be.
Something else to consider is that all EULAs were written long before the indie internet foundry boom of the mid 90s becuase at that time most foundries selling fonts were selling them to art directors whereas todays audience is quite honestly anybody with a computer so the language of EULAs has not evolved to meet this new audience.
For myself, when I started my foundry in 1996, I did a cut/paste job and subbed my foundry name for the one that was there. Certainly years later when I GOT the purpose of a EULA, I did get saavy about understanding what I wanted mine to say. I think this holds true for many foundries from that time period as well as plenty of the current MyFonts foundries who don't totally GET EULAs but think they should have one to seem 'official'
In part, I don't think many font creators totally get the concept of a EULA and I think most of the spanning of the gap occurs from the foundry side, not the end user side and I certainly agree with Hrant on this. And to this point, as I mentioned earlier, the end user is becoming a more sophisticated buyer than ever before so EULAs are being read by end users.
Tiffany made a point earlier about embedding and this one is tricky. The idea of somebody selling an ebook with an embedded font, does this warrant additional licensing fees? What about a computer gaming company using a font prominently in their product? What about embroidery machines that will sew your name on a shirt using a specific font? What about a network running promos for a TV show using a specific font?
In all of these cases, the end user is enhancing or creating a product using the font as part of the product. As the creator of the font being used, I do honestly feel that using the font in these manners does warrant the need to extend licensing since part of what is being sold or promoting the sale is the font.
Stuart :D
How is an eBook different than a print book? Why wouldn't the same rules apply?
Two thoughts I have on this are:
1) Because technically it's still a form of software distribution which is forbidden in most EULAs. Different than sending PDFs with embedded fonts to a service bureau or client, when an eBook author sells a book, they are selling the font(s) as well. Both sides could be argued to death, but it's clearly an issue that requires discussion . . .
As far as eBooks go, it's is no different than a game developer embedding a font in a video game or a kiosk developer embedding a font in a stand along kiosk or digital slot machine. If they are intending to sell something or make money with something the software is part of, I personally feel it's still a form of software distribution that requires additional licensing.
2) I think the difference between a printed book is that the font is no longer accessable and the product is truly 'finished' - In cases of eBooks, the font software outlines are still 'live' because they are required to render text to output devices like monitors and printers via computers. So, for all intents and purposes, the font is still very much a part of what is being sold.
Stuart :D
I have a few thoughts too...
1. having digital fonts (bitmap fonts or outline fonts) embedded in eBooks, video games, help systems, etc., clearly adds value to these products. The fonts reduce file size (no need to pre-render flat bitmaps for each page of content), they aid modification (easier to fix typos without regenerating bitmaps), make localization easier (update a linked text file ratehr than a bitmap), are easily searchable (no need to jump through the additional hoops Octavo do/did in their eBooks by having searchable text 'behind' the bitmap pages) etc., etc.,
2. Embedding permissions in fonts relate to "document" embedding. Clearly a video game is not a document, but for a commercially sold eBook some font vendors make the case that eBooks are "products" and not documents in the embedding sense.
So on the one hand because eBooks were not really covered by older EULAs (which talk about document embedding) font vendors could take advantage of this and put restrictions around the eBook embedding without visibly taking away existing rights from customers.
On the other hand clearly embedding fonts in eBooks adds considerable value and functionality to these products so it's not unreasonable for customers to pay more for these rights.
Fears of extraction of fonts from eBooks is really a red-herring - the restrictions are based on the value the fonts add to the products.
Cheers, Si
Hmmmm... I see Suart's point about "live versus static", but I would say that this kind of extra payment scheme is akin to one's bank taking extra money for every transaction. It's beyond the pale.
I mean, imagine paying FontLab extra money every time you generate a font; this is the final task of the software, and we expect this functionality. And we should. Which is why we ship out OTF or TTF or PST1 files to our licensees, not VFBs. (Not everyone has a copy of FontLab lying around to roll their own fonts.)
The more restrictions we place on the potential licensees of our types, the less interested they are going to be in abiding by those restrictions.
Time for another analogy: You're in the market for a new car. The EULA for the car stipulates that you cannot drive above 45 miles per hour, but you want to drive your car on the highway. So you have to decide: do you buy the car knowing that you can't exceed 45 mph, or go look elsewhere for a car without such a restriction?
I know I've posted this elsewhere, but David Foster Wallace wrote a very interesting piece for Harper's magazine about dictionaries taking either a descriptive or prescriptive approach. If you have a couple of spare hours, you can read it here:
We publishers each have to decide if we're going to focus on describing - our approach at Village - or prescribing the allowable use of licensed types.
I think that fonts, as individual designs, add more value to a printed piece than an electronic one, so I don't really buy your arguments.
The fonts on the cover of a book, the look of a printed page, help convince the browser in the bookstore to pick up the book and buy it. (Or, at least, they engage me.) _That's_ added value for the book producer.
I doubt that many PDFs are sold because of the format. The person buying a PDF is more likely focused on the content, rather than the look. If it all shows up as Adobe Sans, (or Verdana or Georgia) on their system, they'll still get the content, and probably won't be disappointed. The "functional" nature of the font, its search-abilty, its compact format, aren't tied to its individual design qualities.
So, one might say the fonts, qua individual designs, have _less_ value, not more in an electronic doc. One certainly might have a hard time convincing someone holding the purse strings to spend extra for the "restricted" fonts, over easily available unrestricted ones.
Again, market forces should discourage restrictive EULAs, but I suspect that much of the market is already treating fonts as unrestricted regardless of the EULAs.
John, to be honest I don't think people are buying eBooks yet, so the issue isn't exactly relevant right now. Font vendors added these eBook clauses to their EULAs when eBooks were being hyped as the next big thing - that hasn't happened yet - maybe it never will.
If and when eBooks do take off designers may stick with system core fonts but it's likely they'll want the same flexibility they have in print. Even if many customers will be happy with Arial and Comic Sans.
Cheers, Si
For what it's worth, I've heard back from Danny Dawson at FontShop USA about modifications to FF fonts, and the short answer is, no, you can't do any.
I have found my dealings with Danny to be very satisfactory, and I believe he is trying his best to help me and explain the Fontshop terms to me. It's a thorny area, and I get prickly when I enter it. He's spent a lot of time replying to my pesky queries. Fontshop has a good and patient worker there.
Specifically, you may recall that I wanted to be able to rearrange the font to allow me to use the smallcaps in Filemaker. Danny says that modifications have to be done by the designer, or by Fontshop staff, and that I am "effectively prohibited from making the changes yourself." He says there may be some situations where FontShop might allow user mods, but he doesn't know of any.
I've asked him how much such a modification would cost, but he hasn't replied to me yet. Practically, I'm sure it would be much cheaper to just buy the Type 1 smallcap font, but I was curious.
I've also asked him what it would cost to have the ff ligatures from Seria Sans added to the regular font, something I would have done myself in about 5 minutes. I also wondered why FontShop persists in putting ff ligs in a separate font when, for example, Storm includes them in the regular font (even the Type 1), and names them properly so that InDesign finds and uses them.
I haven't asked, but wonder how much time and money it would cost me to have kerns for smallcaps to numerals added to a Fontshop font. Canadian postal codes alternate letters and numerals, like this "M5W 7V6". It doesn't take an obsessive compulsive to find fonts that end up with ugly spaces with these babies! Do all the FontShop fonts cover these pairs? I don't know, but I doubt it. Since I'm not allowed to modify the fonts, I'm going to be stuck reviewing addresses individually if I do mailing labels with a Fontshop font. Hmmm, maybe I'll use an Adobe font, or Panoptica! Life's too short.
So, I'm disappointed in FontShop. I think their EULA is a tease. It states "If you want to make modifications to the Font Software, you must obtain the prior written consent of FSI." Am I the only one who thinks this implies that one _might_ obtain that consent? Shouldn't it state "you are effectively prohibited from making the changes yourself", since that is, in fact, the policy?
> Life's too short.
Exactly. Do it.
... The person buying a PDF is more likely focused on the content, rather than the look. ...
You are right, but it is generally the designer who wants to guarantee the look of the book/brochure/whatever across media which means embedding the font. Should I be saying subsetting instead of embedding? If designers are fine with Adobe Sans and Adobe Serif then there isn't a problem. However, isn't it a messy PDF when you allow for re-flow? Won't you have to create a version of the book/whatever allowing for re-flow? The table of contents will suddenly not count for much.
John, can you e-mail me the EULA which you are using as reference?
I wouldn't call it a tease, well, ok, maybe, but after reading so many EULAs, and not calling myself a lawyer or legal-eagle or expert, it seems to me it is in the best interest of foundries and users to have some text left vague. Perhaps more for the foundries, but it leaves it open to the user to create dialogue and develop a relationship. You could disregard the help which Mr. Dawson has offered. You could read into it and find a rationalization. It seems to me he hasn't given you a final NO, so maybe you could wait a little longer?
Economics say you've probably spent more time (which equals money) on researching this option than it would take to license the type and write a script for replacement? I'm probably over-simplifying.
The things you've stated need to be addressed, not just by FontShop, but all foundries. I'm not trying to create argument.
Perhaps the reason they haven't compiled all of the ligs/figs into the same font is they are slowly upgrading everything to opentype. Maybe. Only a guess. I have some fonts that drive me crazy in similar ways. I do own a license to FontLab, but I'll be the first to admit my total lack of knowledge. IF I were to open a typeface and start monkeying around I'm sure I'd make a bigger mess than a simple find-and-replace would solve.
Am I to understand that the EULA for FSI Canada is different that FSI?
Of course I've spent more time (=money) on this than if I had done a search and replace. My point is that I shouldn't have to jump through such hoops.
The fact that you don't feel comfortable with FontLab is unfortunate. I'm no expert, but the kind of modifications I'm talking about aren't difficult, and aren't dangerous.
Believe me, it takes far less time to add ff ligs to a font for use in InDesign than it does doing S&R every time you use the font, and then remembering to redo the S&R if you change fonts. If I switch my headings from Seria to Seria Sans, I'm going to have to go over to the Sans "expert" (ha!) set to get the ligs again.
Am I the only one who's printed a piece with a word like "office" showing up as "oVce" because I missed a expert set switch after changing fonts? Thanks, but no thanks.
I don't mind terribly that they haven't compiled the ligs into the fonts. I _do_ mind that they won't let me do it for my own work. I'd be happy if they said modifications "voided the warranty". (Oh, that's right, there is no warranty, is there?)
The FontShop EULA I'm referring to is the one offered if you go through the checkout process at FontShop USA. You, or anyone else, can view it there if you wish. I can email it to you if you'd like.
I don't know the current status of FSI Canada. I don't get the impression that the current Canadian terms are different from the USA ones. I was referring to a pamphlet sent to me several years ago by FSI Canada entitled "FontShop's Guide to Legal Typeface Use". I had, naively, relied on it in the past.
I can't find EULAs for any FS Canada font purchases. I have FF Clifford on floppies from them, but the disks don't seem to have EULAs on them. I have some original compressed packages sent to me by FontShop on my hard drive, but, unfortunately, they will no longer open on my Mac, even in Classic. The floppies may have come wrapped in a printed EULA, but it's no longer to be found. I suppose I thought the pamphlet told me what I needed to know. Ah, youth!
FWIW, Tiffany:
I'm not sure, because I never use them, but I think that the Adobe substitution fonts maintain line breaks.
Dan, I think I will use your idea. After thinking about it, and obviously having misunderstood you the first time, I do like the idea that this is "The End Users Manifesto".
Of course I've spent more time (=money) on this than if I had done a search and replace. My point is that I shouldn't have to jump through such hoops.
Sorry. I was stating the painfully obvious.
Thanks for e-mailing your EULA. Yes, I'll agree, it is mis-leading of them to tell you to obtain written consent when in fact, so far, it seems you won't be granted consent. I think you might agree that if they had simply said, "modifications are not allowed," you wouldn't have bothered with them or their type. Or, at least you wouldn't have wasted time hoping and writing. The fact that you are in correspondence should show them you do care. Perhaps it will end on you side of the user fence.
FS Canada no longers exists. Using that guidebook, as helpful as it might have been can only cause problems for you now. When foundries change their license I believe all past users who licensed are now held to the new license.
"When foundries change their license I believe all past users who licensed are now held to the new license."
Well, no I don't think so. If that were true, _I_ could change the terms of the agreement! That would be a unilateral re-negotiation of the "contract". I can't possibly be held to a new license—I didn't agree to it. I can only be held to the license I agreed to at the time of the transaction.
That's why, for example, the Berthold fonts I obtained in the distant past I can still use, although I have no intention of getting any new ones. And that's why I wouldn't be too worried about making an OpenType version of faces I licensed from FS Canada.
If you licensed an FF font from FS Canada, I assume that your license was not with FS Canada, but with FSI (just like if you bought a ShinnTypes font from FSI, the EULA is from the foundry being distributed by the distributor, not the distributor itself).
FSI does still exist, and you would still be bound by your agreement with them if that is the way the EULA really worked (which I'm pretty sure it would… can any FontShoppers help me out here?).
Dan, I'm the one disagreeing, not John. I have always understood that as EULAs are updated those are the EULAs which we are held by. No? I mean say I license a typeface in 1999, but the foundry updates their license. I have questions and call them. I am now bound by the new/updated EULA, right?
I'd like more feedback on that question too.
Tiffany, I was responding to this line of John's last post:
And that's why I wouldn't be too worried about making an OpenType version of faces I licensed from FS Canada.
I would be worried about that, from a fair use perspective.
As to your question, T, I really don't know what the answer would be! I suspect that a foundry could include in its EULA a clause like, "we reserve the right to modify our license at any time; this will not validate our agreement, etc." But I am not a lawyer. I don't know what any foundry's position is on this. I bet that Thomas, Si, or John Hudson would have better answers, though.
In what way would fair use be violated if I acted within the agreement I made with FS when they took my money and mailed me a font? I would say that altering software to ensure fitness of purpose would be "fairer" than an after-the-fact prohibition on alteration.
Really, please explain the fair use objection. When I made the agreement with FontShop, they were distributing literature (unsolicited—just because I was on their mailing list) telling me it was okay to alter fonts for personal use. I purchased a licence, sending the money to FS Canada. Um, would it not be "fair" for me to assume I was allowed to do what they said I could do?
If software vendors wish their agreements to have the force of contracts, they can't possibly expect be able to re-negotiate them without, well, negotiating. It doesn't take an Oliver Wendell Holmes to know that a binding agreement is binding on BOTH parties.
I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that any contract that suggested "we reserve the right to modify our license" would, if it ever came to court, be difficult to defend. It would be tantamount to stating that the contract, as written, did NOT "constitute the whole of the agreement" (ever notice how often you see that in software agreements?). It would leave the whole thing up for grabs.
You can't have an agreement if one party says: "I agree now, but I might not agree later". That's not an agreement, that's a discussion.
John, do you have a credit-card? :-/
Sorry, I don't follow. You mean the floating rates? Yeah, okay.
But, really, Dan's hypothetical EULA with a future modification clause is just that. I don't think any font vendor has ever stooped THAT low. I might be impatient with them, but I'm not about to lump them in with loan sharks and credit card companies!
John, is the license from FS Canada, or FSI (FontShop International)? I believe that the FontFont library is owned by FSI. If that is so then FS Canada was merely the intermediary—your agreement was with FSI. If you had bought a font from a non FontShop-related foundry through FS Canada (Adobe, Monotype, Shinn, etc), your licenses wouldn't be voided just because FS Canada closed.
Like I said, I really don't know what your situation was exactly. But even if the literature (flyers, etc) said that fonts were modifiable, those were the license. And it is the license that counts, isn't it?
Have you asked anyone at FontShop in SF if they/FSI offer modification licenses? Some foundries will change your license to allow for modification for a specific fee. This would then be "written permission." Other foundries don't do this, they probably don't want anyone to change their font data ever.
Credit cards can do pretty much anything they want.
> I don't think any font vendor has ever stooped THAT low.
Maybe, maybe not. But since few people read EULAs (that's why they're so long and cryptic, duh) they're more motivated to.
Oh, Dan, I've been in discussion for over a month with Fontshop in SF. See my previous posts above.
And the issue of my 'legacy" EULA isn't who it was with, it's what it allowed; and further, (as I've argued), what _it_ allowed, not what current FSI EULAs allow.
I'm not suggesting that my licence is void, quite the contrary. I'm suggesting that it can't be annulled unilaterally. (I don't think FSI is planning to give me back my money.)
At least that's how I see it, unless you can further elucidate for me how it wouldn't be "fair" for me to exercise the rights an EULA gave me.


text: POPSUGAR Beauty Guess Who Guess Who? by Beauty 12/27/08 0 Shares Like us on Facebook A few months ago, I asked you if you remembered this compact makeup contraption from the hilariously goofy movie Zoolander, starring Ben Stiller. So, now tell me this: Do you recall which natural beauty company Stiller's character represents in the commercial where he appears as a "merman"? Read More Guess Who Get chic with our daily newsletter Enjoy street style trends, runway looks, and the best in celeb beauty in your inbox. Fashion & Beauty News Street Style Celebrity Style Beauty Tips Sign up with Link Love This new method for applying blush will knock your socks off — InStyle No waterproof mascara stands a chance against this makeup remover — The Cut Behold, a skin-tone diet that actually works — Allure This nail polish line has a nude shade for every complexion — YouBeauty 10 at-home remedies for pesky surprise blemishes — SheFinds Classic skin care products to steal from your mom's bathroom —The Gloss This is what happens when you put kelp on your face — HuffPost Style 5 natural beauty brands that are totally affordable — Daily Makeover


text:
item(s) in cart
My Account X
Carhartt Boy's Outdoorsman Long-Sleeve T-Shirt
Item # 731010
Key Features
Screen print Carhartt "Outdoorsman" fishing design
100% cotton jersey fabric
Woven Carhartt brandmark loop label
Free $10 E-Gift Card
Free $10 E-Gift Card with $50 Apparel or Footwear Purchase from 5.11 Tactical, The North Face, Kuhl, Carhartt, Columbia, Quiksilver, Reebok, or Saucony. Regular Price Merchandise Only. Can combine purchase to equal $50. In Store and Online. Expires 4/08/15
See Promotional Items
Our Price $11.99
Availability: Sold Out
- Additional discounts do not apply.
Prices, promotions, styles and availability may vary by store and online.
detailsback to top
Product DescriptionRugged and rough for outdoor play, this long-sleeve t-shirt features contrast neck tape and a screen print Carhartt "Outdoorsman" fishing design. 100% cotton jersey fabric, 100% cotton 1x1 rib trim. Woven Carhartt brandmark loop label.


text:
Buy online front row tickets for all Concert, Theater and Sporting events, and tickets to all sold out major events.
Sport, Concert and Theater tickets are hot and Frontrow.com has tickets to all your favorite events, including the Miami Heat Games, College Football and Super Bowl. We can get you "In the door" or the best seats to all games and events. Talk to one of our specialists or order online 24/7. Frontrow.com has a solid reputation of 22 years in the business selling tickets. Front row can get you tickets for all the, Playoffs and all NBA Games.
Leela James is always a great hit with every crowd. We stock all Leela James tickets to every Leela James show! Frontrow.com is your souce for premium Leela James tickets. Let us put you right up front and see Leela James like you've never seen before, up close and personal. Order online or call toll free at 800-881-7691 and speak to a frontrow concert experts.
BUY - SELL Leela James Tickets
Sell Your Leela James Tickets
Frontrow.com provides the ervice of finding and obtaining tickets to events worldwide. We are a private company not affiliated with any venue, stadium, promoter, theater or box office, the MLB, NBA, NFL, NCAA, NHL,NBA or any of their teams. Trademark, trade names, and copyrights, used in this web site are only for descriptive purposes. We Do not act with the permission or on behalf of any of above mentioned organizations.. We provide Leela James tickets through a range of sources and contacts. Prices for Leela James tickets are often higher than the ticket's face value, reflecting costs of finding and aquiring premium Leela James Tickets.
About us
Front Row is a quality ticket broker for all concerts, theater, and sporting events. Front Row sells the finest Leela James packages and tickets. If tickets you are searching for are not available, please check back as we always update and list new tickets in our huge inventory. Leela James schedules are on our web site. Just click to see our real-time online concert, sport and theater tickets.
Frontrowcom has the largest inventory of Leela James Tickets on the secondary ticket market. Call today for up to the latest information on ticket availability and prices since we constantly purchase new event tickets. If you want to go to a special Leela James event; we are your ticket broker for sold out Tickets. Front Row welcomes corporate accounts seeking premium tickets for entertaining clients.
Front Row has been a ticket broker for over two decades. Our mission statement is to give our clients the best service, lowest prices and reliability. When searching for Leela James Tickets or other events, Call Frontrow.com where our professional team can offer you the ultimate Leela James Tickets experience.
Front Row.com is for all of your other ticketing needs. Frontrow.com sells tickets to all concert tours nationwide. Not only do we sell Leela James tickets but we also buy Leela James tickets, NFL tickets, NCAA tickets, NHL tickets, NBA, MLB, all golf tickets, tennis, title fight tickets, concerts, family show tickets, and theater tickets including Broadway and Las Vegas shows. Call Frontrow.com today for Leela James Tickets ; and all of your entertainment needs! Frontrow.com strives to provide our patrons the utmost quality service and competitive pricing. If any event isn't listed; please phone us for any hard to find or special requests.
PURCHASING AND AVAILABILITY OF Leela James Tickets
Click the above link for Leela James info and front row tickets to events across the country and globe. You can buy tickets for Leela James on our web site by selecting your specific venue and time. When searching for Leela James tickets that are unavailable or sold-out from other sources, contact Frontrowcom, your source of front row tickets. If you don't see tickets on our frontrow web site or don't want to order online, don't hesitate to call us toll free at 800-881-ROW-1. We are ticket pro's and offer data about buying tickets, schedules and venue maps. Frontrow.com offers an vast inventory of theater, concert, sport event tickets with constant updates. At Frontrow.com; our goal is offering the largest selection of Leela James tickets on the secondary market. Use "Click Here" links to check future events, schedules and seating charts. Our Leela James inventory has up to the hour accuracy. However, if tickets you want are not available, please contact us and our staff will guide you through available options in the same or similar category to your original ticket choice.
Ticket delivery
All tickets are sent via Federal Express. Once you locate Leela James tickets you want to buy, they can be purchased online via our secure encrypted server. If you prefer more personal service, call us today and speak to any of our ticket brokers. Leela James tickets are usually sent within 6-24 hours. Your shipping address must match the billing address of your credit card. If you wish to ship to an alternate address; we require ID. Please contact one of our ticket experts to provide you with excellent service.
Ticket refund policy
All Leela James sales and all other event tickets are final.
Madame Noire
Singer Leela James Talks Reality Show Sisterhood & New Music On Café ...
Madame Noire
Singer Leela James works on R&B Divas LA with an all-female cast. Loni Love is on The Real with an all-female cast. With reality and talk show cat fights going viral and making national news, we're asking can't women just get along? Plus, Leela talks about ...
Indianapolis Recorder
10 minutes with Leela James
Indianapolis Recorder
Performing recently to a sold-out crowd at Old National Centre alongside R&B artists Ledisi and Raheem DeVaughn, Leela James is known to "speak the truth" and deliver soulful messages through her music. This Los Angeles native stepped foot onto the ...
What's Hot in the City this Spring weekend?
Tonight, (Thursday) The Wilbur presents Ledisi: The Intimate Truth Tour with special guests Raheem DeVaughn and Leela James at 8 p.m. Tickets: $39-$49; www.ticketmaster.com. photo. Ledisi. This weekend, the Cyclorama at The Boston Center for the Arts ...
Ledisi performs at NJPAC March 20
"Music is a spiritual thing, it's beyond all of us, really," says Ledisi, born Ledisi Anibade Young, who will be appearing at NJPAC as part of her "Intimate Truth Tour," sharing a bill with singer-songwriters Raheem DeVaughn ("You") and Leela James ("Fall For ...
The 'Intimate Truth' of Leela James
leela james (cover for target ad) *What's all the hubbub about "real singers?" It's difficult to wrap your head around, because the group it represents seems to depend on more opinion than fact and changes with each passing generation. So, with it being ...
Check out Frontrow.com for all your tickets needs. We've got great sources for any event ranging from concert tickets to World Series tickets, Book of Mormon tickets, and Las Vegas show tickets. And don't forget the chance to score big on Broadway tickets and once in a lifetime events like the National Final Rodeo, the 2016 Super Bowl or the Daytona 500. Our inventory covers all types of entertainment and special events. With the biggest selection of concerts, sports, and theater tickets around, you can't go wrong with tickets from Frontrow.com.


text:
- News
- Local
- Sports
- Business
- Politics
- Opinion
- Lifestyle
- Entertainment
- Obituaries
- Classifieds
- Autos
- Housing
- Jobs
Matt Vensel is in his first year at the Star Tribune after covering the Ravens for the Baltimore Sun for six years. He is a Pittsburgh native and a Penn State grad. Follow him at @mattvensel.
Mark Craig has covered the NFL for 23 years, and the Vikings since 2003 for the Star Tribune. He is one of 44 Pro Football Hall of Fame selectors. Follow him at @markcraignfl.
Master Tesfatsion is the Star Tribune's digital Vikings writer. He is a 2013 graduate of Arizona State and worked for mlb.com before arriving in Minneapolis. Follow him at @masterstrib.
Three days after the Vikings lost 26-23 to Detroit in overtime to fall to 0-3, right guard Anthony Herrera was still stinging from the play that truly spelled doom. Ahead 20-17 with just less than 12 minutes to play, the Vikings opted to go for it on fourth-and-1 from the Lions 17 rather than using Ryan Longwell to pad the lead. And instead of using All-Pro Adrian Peterson to pick up the yard, the Vikings called Toby Gerhart's number. Gerhart, of course, was stuffed. And from that point on, the Lions had all the momentum.
"That's still eating at me," Herrera said Wednesday morning during the team's open locker room session. "That's the kind of situation that makes you salivate on the offensive line. Third-and-1, fourth-and-1, that's where you make your money. It's like being down on the goal line. That's where we have to excel."
As for what went wrong on the play?
"I'm not going to get into what misfired," Herrera said. "But I can tell you that the next time we have that situation arise, we will be ready."
The eighth-year veteran also rolled his eyes at the ongoing criticism from fans and reporters who blame the Vikings' three second-half collapses this season on a lack of halftime adjustments, a cliché line of reasoning.
"It's easy for people to point fingers," Herrera said. "They can take the easy route and say whatever they want to say. But honestly they have no clue what the coaches are asking us to do. They have no clue what plays were called and what guys were supposed to do on each given play. So people can keep talking. They can keep saying whatever they want to about adjustments. But look, we have a tight-knit locker room here. Everybody knows what is going on. No one's head is down. So people on the outside can talk as much as they want to. We really don't care.
|Vikings (3967)
|People (1)
|Bears (492)
|Ex-Vikings (50)
|Football on TV (53)
|Lions (382)
|NFL draft (293)
|NFL post-season (28)
|Packers (538)
|Super Bowl (286)
|Vikings coaches (83)
|Vikings defense (261)
|Vikings fans (121)
|Vikings injury report (293)
|Vikings management (32)
|Vikings off the field (283)
|Vikings offense (371)
|Vikings quarterbacks (262)
|Vikings road games (77)
|Vikings rookies (38)
|Vikings roster moves (41)
|Vikings special teams (40)
|Vikings training camp (146)
|Injury report (354)
|Off the field (149)
|On the road (88)
|Quarterbacks (374)
|Rookies (96)
|Roster moves (19)
|Vikings draft (275)
|Vikings trade talk (2)
|Vikings players (816)
|Adrian Peterson (1010)
|Anthony Herrera (161)
|Antoine Winfield (412)
|Ben Leber (97)
|Bernard Berrian (213)
|Bobby Wade (16)
|Brad Childress (643)
|Brett Favre (814)
|Brian Robison (183)
|Bryant McKinnie (107)
|Cedric Griffin (194)
|Chad Greenway (230)
|Chester Taylor (79)
|Chris Kluwe (128)
|Darrell Bevell (120)
|E.J. Henderson (184)
|Heath Farwell (50)
|Jared Allen (427)
|John Sullivan (218)
|Kevin Williams (243)
|Leslie Frazier (940)
|Madieu Williams (78)
|Pat Williams (156)
|Percy Harvin (684)
|Phil Loadholt (171)
|Ray Edwards (173)
|Ryan Longwell (145)
|Sage Rosenfels (102)
|Sidney Rice (273)
|Steve Hutchinson (192)
|Tarvaris Jackson (173)
|Tyrell Johnson (152)
|Visanthe Shiancoe (216)
|Brad Childress (647)
|Darrell Bevell (121)
|Leslie Frazier (949)