[scribus] Which font used in the logo - Armada Regular

avox avox at arcor.de
Tue May 27 20:05:03 CEST 2008

davelab6 wrote:
> 2008/5/25 avox <avox at arcor.de>:
>> So if function is all that matters, noone would need more tha Courier /
>> Times / Helvetica surely? Those are quite readable.
> Usually this argument only includes one typeface, because including
> several indicates that a variety of type designs are needed.

Only because TeX distinguishes roman, sans serif and teletype :-)

> That's because, although the ability to read words is the primary
> function of a type design, and being recognisable as a "letter" is
> what defines shapes of letters from other shapes, that is not the
> _only_ functional aspect.
> We need many more free fonts than those three - just as many as
> existing as proprietary software - because there are _many_ secondary
> aspects of type designs that have a massive effect on how well they
> function.


> There are also many tertiary aspects about how type designs are
> implemented in software too.
> For example: Helvetica is a great type design for signage and large
> scale use, but it not intended for reading paragraphs of text at 10pt,
> and if its font isn't hinted well, it will work very poorly at small
> sizes. Other sans serif type designs are intended for reading long
> texts with, and can be well hinted to function on screen as well as on
> paper.
>> IMO a font designer has the right to profit from his/her work, and as
>> long
>> as one needs money for living, the font designer should decide how
>> to pay for the use of his/her work.
> I could answer that nobody is forced to be a type designer. Most of us
> cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
> faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
> standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something
> else.
> But that is the wrong answer because it accepts an implicit
> assumption: that without total control of the use of font software,
> type designers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or
> nothing.

That's not what I think; I just think that the fontdesigner should decide
how and how much he/she should be paid.

> The real reason type designers will not starve is that it will still
> be possible for them to get paid for type design; just not paid as
> much as now.
> Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. 

I know.

> It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it
> were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, business would move to
> other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are
> always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
> Probably type design will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it
> is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not
> considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they
> now do. If type designers made the same, that would not be an
> injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more
> than that.)
> There are plenty of ways that type designers could make a living
> without selling various ways of using fonts. This way is customary now
> because it brings type designers and publishers the most money, not
> because it is the only way for them to make a living. It is easy to
> find other ways if you want to find them.
> Here are a number of real world examples of free font software being paid
> for:
> A type designer finds 1 person who wants a font exclusively, and they
> pay 100% of the development cost (including a profit margin)
> A type designer finds 2 people who want a similar font unexclusively,
> and they pay 2/3rd of the cost each, leaving 1/3rd profit margin.
> A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
> fonts onto the new hardware.
> An OS developer introducing a new OS will pay for the porting of fonts
> onto the new text layout engine.
> A lingusitics organization employs type designers to enable the
> organization to promote literacy in very poor areas of the world.
> The sale of teaching services also employs type designers.
> I'm not sure that anyone has a _right_ to profit, because if someone
> with a better business model starts their business, they ought to
> drive that person into bankruptcy.

Difficult semantics here. I meant that font designers have the right to 
offer their product on the market and keep the money they get for it.
Of course, if there are no buyers, there will be no profit.

> There is nothing wrong about doing business and making profit and
> making a living, as long as that business isn't socially harmful; many
> kinds of businesses are illegal, many more are socially frowned upon.
> Proprietary software is socially harmful, and I think I may have a
> better business model for making fonts than the proprietary guys; I'm
> certain I have a business model that can co-exist with them. Afterall,
> the only OS developers who have survived Microsoft are either owned by
> Microsoft (eg: Apple) or free software developers :-)
> (This email is largely parodying http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html :-)

Uh, I'm afraid that this irony is lost on me. You mean your whole email is
a parody? Or just the last paragraph?

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Which-font-used-in-the-logo---Armada-Regular-tp17446711p17496503.html
Sent from the Scribus New mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the scribus mailing list