Mark .affont Fonts in the Font Family List

[Hilltop]

As .affont fonts have limitations in use (due to copyrights and such) I would like to see them (somehow) marked in the Font Family list to remind the user of this fact.

[walt.farrell]

I don't see any limitations different from other commercial fonts. What are you seeing as a problem? 

 

[Old Bruce]

2 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

I don't see any limitations different from other commercial fonts. What are you seeing as a problem? 

Most obvious is that they are not Packaged when File > Save as a package... is invoked.

[Hilltop]

@walt.farrell I should perhaps have added the link to a discussion about .affont files and their characteristics: 

 

[walt.farrell]

55 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Most obvious is that they are not Packaged when File > Save as a package... is invoked.

They are, but as part of the .afpackage file, not separately on the Fonts folder.

[walt.farrell]

56 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

should perhaps have added the link to a discussion about .affont files and their characteristics

Nothing in that discussion is about licensing terms, which is what you seemed to be concerned about. 

If you work on a project, and Package it, the .affont fonts will be included in it for other V2 users to use when working on that project.

[Hilltop]

47 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Nothing in that discussion is about licensing terms, which is what you seemed to be concerned about. 

Walt, the type of licensing determines how freely you can use the font. Affinity fonts have a limited license.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Hilltop said:

Walt, the type of licensing determines how freely you can use the font. Affinity fonts have a limited license.

All commercial fonts have license restrictions. So it might be more appropriate to mark any font with restrictions.

The only potentially unusual one I see for the Publication Fonts pack is that you may not

Quote

Use the fonts in any websites, commercially marketed user interfaces, software applications or games.

 

[G13RL]

Perhaps OP regrets that .affont fonts can only be used in Affinity applications?

[walt.farrell]

15 minutes ago, G13RL said:

Perhaps OP regrets that .affont fonts can only be used in Affinity applications?

Perhaps. That's part of what I'm trying to help claraify. What is/are the issues that necessitate marking these fonts in the list, as opposed to any other issues that might cause one to want them marked?

[Hilltop]

21 minutes ago, G13RL said:

Perhaps OP regrets that .affont fonts can only be used in Affinity applications?

No, not at all. It's about knowing/being reminded that a font in the Font Family List is limited for use in the Affinity ecosystem. 

[walt.farrell]

7 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

No, not at all. It's about knowing/being reminded that a font in the Font Family List is limited for use in the Affinity ecosystem. 

What do you mean by "limited for use in the Affinity ecosystem", if it's not "only be used in Affinity applications" as @G13RL hypothesized?

Any commercial font has limitations on what you can do with it, and some restrictions. These apply whether you use them in an Affinity application or some other application. The only difference with the Publication Typeface Collection is that in addition to the usual kind of restriction they are also limited to being used within the Affinity applications.

[walt.farrell]

16 minutes ago, N.P.M. said:

I think @Hilltop wants them to be separate from the ones you own or are free so one doesn't use them accidently beyond the scope of the license.

My point is that any fonts you purchased are likely to also have restrictions that you could violate accidentally. That's why we have a topic in Resources about fonts that it's safe to use commercially.

Therefore, rather than simply marking .affont fonts, it feels more appropriate to mark any fonts that have any restrictions. And, even further, perhaps to provide a mechanism for viewing the restrictions.

[G13RL]

52 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

No, not at all. It's about knowing/being reminded that a font in the Font Family List is limited for use in the Affinity ecosystem. 

Thank you for the clarification.

[Andreas Scherer]

12 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

So it might be more appropriate to mark any font with restrictions.

I'd love to have more than a single “Favorites” tab for various groups of prefered fonts. (I recall that this feature has been requested.)

[Hilltop]

11 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

...it feels more appropriate to mark any fonts that have any restrictions. And, even further, perhaps to provide a mechanism for viewing the restrictions.

Great, if Affinity could do that. But it's not really because of legal restrictions that I'm raising this issue.

Mine is just a suggestion/feature request to Serif about app functionality relating to some of its add-ons. If I use a font that is only available from within Affinity, I'd like to see that and -- after some time causing me to have forgotten about it -- to be reminded of this fact. I use various apps, including a font manager and believe this would be a very handy feature as it flags where the respective apps' font family lists are not congruent. 

But let me ask you, what's against a big dot or other clear mark after the font name?

[walt.farrell]

2 hours ago, Hilltop said:

But let me ask you, what's against a big dot or other clear mark after the font name?

I'm not against marking/tagging fonts, but it's important to fully understand/explain why  they should be marked.  This will help ensure that the resulting change (if made) satisfies the requirements. It has been unclear (to me) whether you were merely concerned that the fonts could not be used in other apps, or were concerned about the legal issues with using them. 

Each concern requires a different design, and different capabilities.

[Hilltop]

7 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

It has been unclear (to me) whether you were merely concerned that the fonts could not be used in other apps, or were concerned about the legal issues with using them. 

And it wasn't clear to me where you were coming from. 🙂

I hope I made myself clear in my later posts.

[Tom Lachecki]

This has been discussed a few times, and although I can see where you're coming from, I think it sets a precedent of marking any fonts with licensing restrictions, which isn't practical. As Walt says, most - all?! - fonts have their own varying licensing requirements, which it's already your responsibility to meet. Suddenly any fonts without this new mark would sort of appear to be unrestricted, which is not likely to be the case.

It also doesn't really tell you anything that you need to know during day-to-day use, while taking up space in doing so.

The Save As Package dialog does indicate that the font will be embedded in a restricted fashion, if that helps!

[Hilltop]

@Tom Lachecki My request is not about licensing restrictions. It's about marking fonts that can only be used in Affinity apps and not in other apps, including font managers. This to make clear why some fonts don't show up in Family Font Lists of other apps. 

[Tom Lachecki]

We'll take your feedback on board