> They said that if we don't continue licensing through them and "build a relationship," they'll have to charge us retroactively for our us
Maybe I misunderstood this but does this mean they are threatening if they stopped using the font/s and just move in they will come after them for the charges they think they owe them in the past?
It's possible the poster's business has very high requirements for fonts that justify paying a license, but for 99% of businesses that aren't focused on typography, wouldn't it make more sense to use open source fonts?
Pro tip: when you have a restrictive licence and suddenly they ask you for details of your actual use you reply "we use it accordingly to the terms of our licence" or you politely reply that they should direct any questions to your legal and licensing department.
On a side note, I am puzzled as to why a "small non-profit" would pay $4k a year to license a single font in the first place.
IMO, they need to deny they are breaching the terms of their current license, then drop that font completely, and then wave the bully bye bye.
> I am puzzled as to why a "small non-profit" would pay $4k a year to license a single font in the first place.
Yeah, that’s just ridiculous. Imagine how many small donations are made to some non-profit cause and then up being wasted on paying for fancy proprietary fonts.
It’s unusual too; the non-profits with which I’ve interacted tend to use open source software and actually care about all this ethical stuff.
> They said that if we don't continue licensing through them and "build a relationship," they'll have to charge us retroactively for our us
Maybe I misunderstood this but does this mean they are threatening if they stopped using the font/s and just move in they will come after them for the charges they think they owe them in the past?
It's possible the poster's business has very high requirements for fonts that justify paying a license, but for 99% of businesses that aren't focused on typography, wouldn't it make more sense to use open source fonts?
Pro tip: when you have a restrictive licence and suddenly they ask you for details of your actual use you reply "we use it accordingly to the terms of our licence" or you politely reply that they should direct any questions to your legal and licensing department.
On a side note, I am puzzled as to why a "small non-profit" would pay $4k a year to license a single font in the first place.
IMO, they need to deny they are breaching the terms of their current license, then drop that font completely, and then wave the bully bye bye.
> I am puzzled as to why a "small non-profit" would pay $4k a year to license a single font in the first place.
Yeah, that’s just ridiculous. Imagine how many small donations are made to some non-profit cause and then up being wasted on paying for fancy proprietary fonts.
It’s unusual too; the non-profits with which I’ve interacted tend to use open source software and actually care about all this ethical stuff.
> Imagine how many small donations are made to some non-profit cause and then up being wasted on paying for fancy proprietary fonts.
I can imagine they'll take the angle it helps improve the "brand-awareness" which supposedly bring them more profits in the long run.
For some non-profit I've given to I've received more donation reminder letters that my one time donation would have cover for.
Is this the new patent trolling?