> """ It’s not just DRM. Take “Goldman Sans,” a free font released by the finance giant and global supervillain Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sans is a copyrighted work, and it comes with a copyright license that you “agree” to when you download the font. Among the license terms for Goldman Sans is a non-disparagement clause – that is, a clause that prohibits you from criticizing Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs doesn’t need copyright law to prevent people from copying its font. It gives the font away for free. Goldman Sachs needs copyright law so it can boss people around – so it can tell them what they may (and may not) say."""
Wow! That this even exists blows my mind. It reads almost as evil as surreptitiously inserting a "all your money belongs to us" clause in a EULA in the hope that nobody will read it. I'm exaggerating, of course, but I'm not sure what part of the license is actually this "non-disparagement clause".
The closest I could find in the above "restricted font license" is in the "Governing law" section -
"The User and Goldman Sachs hereby waive any right to a trial by jury and consent to exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York or, if federal jurisdiction is lacking, New York Supreme Court, New York County, for the resolution of any dispute regarding this License or the parties’ relationship arising therefrom."
.. which is limited to disputes regarding *this license or the parties’ relationship arising therefrom* .. and which doesn't seem as out of line as the article's wording suggests.
Again .. wow! Buy a pen at a store and it comes with a usage agreement that you may not write anything against <insert-party-name> using the pen! Not surprising that they removed the term as it would be overreach or something.
Wow! That this even exists blows my mind. It reads almost as evil as surreptitiously inserting a "all your money belongs to us" clause in a EULA in the hope that nobody will read it. I'm exaggerating, of course, but I'm not sure what part of the license is actually this "non-disparagement clause".
https://design.gs.com/d/legal/goldman-sans-license
The closest I could find in the above "restricted font license" is in the "Governing law" section -
"The User and Goldman Sachs hereby waive any right to a trial by jury and consent to exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York or, if federal jurisdiction is lacking, New York Supreme Court, New York County, for the resolution of any dispute regarding this License or the parties’ relationship arising therefrom."
.. which is limited to disputes regarding *this license or the parties’ relationship arising therefrom* .. and which doesn't seem as out of line as the article's wording suggests.