<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM, David Brodbeck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gull@gull.us">gull@gull.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Phill Wiggin wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
This new theme requires a for-pay ($15?) font, and due to the licensing (I assume) of the theme there are no modifications allowed. E.g. No finding a font that you consider "good enough" and using that.<br>
<br>
Maybe I'm just not a font person. As long as it doesn't look awful, I'm pretty content with even the free-as-in-speech fonts. If none of those work, I'll go for free-as-in-beer. But a font, to me, is not something that's really worth paying for.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Fair enough, I guess. We had basically the same argument on-list about Schedules Direct when that changeover happened, and I don't really want to get into the argument again about whether it's ever OK to charge for something related to a FOSS project.<div>
<div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Well, these two discussions are quite different. The situation with SD was one of abiding by TOSs. Namely, screenscraping wasn't allowed, the only viable way to get listing data was SD. I was _more_ than happy to pay for the service. If there were a free service that offered listing data but wasn't as full-featured, I'd consider it.<br>
<br>Fonts.. not so much. There are font options out there.. many of them. Any given one may be "good enough" for most users (in their own opinions). <br><br>I'm not really concerned with Free-as-in-speech or Free-as-in-beer. More Free-as-in-choice. =)<br>
<br></div></div>