Cutting type used to require a huge amount of skill of course, but it is relatively easy to design well drawn type with modern software these days. It takes time to draw multiple weights and styles, but it's certainly not as skillful as most would assume. The number of new "foundries" that have popped up over the past few years is telling.

The amount organisations used to pay for custom type jobs was insane, given how much work it actually was to deliver them. The value attached to the aesthetic of the particular designer being hired is also debatable in my experience, very rarely did clients reject or amend what they were presented with. I've also drawn fonts that have been attributed to other designers, and nobody seems to notice.

I think things are changing slowly as the market becomes more saturated, but licensing like this is outdated in my opinion.

For anyone looking for a beautiful geometric sans-serif with an open source license, I can highly recommend Inter: https://rsms.me/inter/

Inter appears to have broader language support, has a variable font version, and is also now available via Google Fonts (for anyone who cares about that). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_font

That's an interesting clause given that everyone can just download the font files from the linked web page. Or do the original font files contain information that isn't in the WOFF format?

Typographers struggle to make a living in most cases, but yet they don't offer better font licenses. I don't understand why they don't make it simple single license term for all usecases and make a sale. It's masochistic.

Thankfully there are some quite nice SIL or OTF licenced fonts available.

Similarly, all the people saying the competition is free aren't the target market for a good quality font with a degree of exclusivity. You aren't going to find that combination from sources like Google Fonts.

Meanwhile, the kind of customer who is going to value this kind of work and actually pay for it is probably going to accept the licensing conditions. They might not like them either, but since almost everyone offering something to this market is doing so on similar terms right now, it's a take-it-or-leave-it kind of deal.

Standard form contracts saying they are governed by the laws of the place where the supplier is based are also completely routine. US companies frequently even specify an individual state favourable to them for this purpose. And yet, business still happens.

"9.6 Cinetype Limited reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify or replace this Agreement at any time. If a revision is material we will provide at least 30 days' notice prior to any new terms taking effect."

This is an unneeded Darth Vader clause.

But as a business, I cannot tie myself to a document that is published and that in two years’ time could be obsolete. I understand some people think it’s already obsolete, but it’s not. With one license you have what most commonly requires three licenses: Desktop, Web and App.

Regarding the tiers, the principle is simple: the font is a value for a business, either in terms of brand value or product value, and a business pays according to the value that the font brings.

A startup with little investment has all what it needs to adopt the font throughout the entire range of usages and assets (in Print and Digital).

Going back to the ‘Darth Vedery’ clause. If there will be any change to the EULA, this will apply to the fonts distributed from the time we will publish the new EULA (this is also why EULAs come with a version number and a publication date).

The new EULA won’t work retrospectively. That would be beyond evil, I totally agree. No fear of “Luke, I am your father” kind of situation. If previous customers will find the new EULA a better fit for their needs, they will be free to comply to it, if not, they will refer to the original EULA attached to the font they bought. In simple words, older customers will always have the best of what comes next.

I thought the objections to the licensing in this case were more about the limitations like having a maximum number of users covered, but perhaps I misunderstood what at least some people were upset about.

Most of the applications we did where built off of our custom interactive engine and the font renderer was very flexible and rivaled browsers at the time as well as supporting emergent tech like dynamic sdf fonts.

Edit: Sorry, I missed the reference to single applications in your earlier comment. In that case, what you were saying makes a lot more sense.

And a note, the license applies to users, not CPUs. If I have two computers, one tablet and one mobile phone, I'm still one user, and I can use the font on as many devices as I want.

Also the requirement for wide characters like Russian or Chinese make a lot of “toy” fonts unusable.

Of course it does. Someone who doesn't see value in a work is never likely to buy it. Promoting the work to that person is a waste of the seller's time. Offering more generous terms to try to squeeze out an extra sale to that person reduces the benefit of all other sales, and it might not get that extra sale anyway. As a business strategy, it doesn't make sense.