Good work! With so little pixels! I like the solutions of 'H', 'g' & 'w'. I find the spacing should be more consistent, e.g. on 'e' & 't'.

Awesomely simple! Very readable too. I like it.

Yep: really nice H solution!
But i fell in love with the g.
makes me want to write gorgeous over and over. gorgeous!
I also enjoy the & and @, 4, but specially the +

dude, this is totally re-imagined and rocks. a worthy descendant of Leaflet Stem. if cloned, why no links to the original?

If you make a clone of a clone and then delete the first clone, fontstruct forgets the original link! (Oh, crap – I just told the george-cloney trolls how to really rip off someone else’s fontstructions ;) I even believe this applies if you simply haven’t published the intermediary clone. Well, the clone will indicate itself as such, but the original will no longer link to the cloned version.

Oh, and I think this is pretty rad, too!

The new samples make this gem glitter even more.

This just gets better and better - well worth my 10 :)

Congratulations! FontStruct Staff have deemed your FontStruction worthy of special mention. “Karyotype” is now a Top Pick.

Another great example of FontStruction remix – an original design with beautiful glyphs and tasty samples.

* * *

We are aware of the problem reported by will.i.ૐ, and we're are working to fix it. Clones need not only to mantain the links to original FontStructions, but also honour its license – this somehow also got broken in this FontStruction.

In this case, the original license from Leaflet Stem is Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike. The “Share Alike” part says that If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Karyotype has a Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license, which violates the original license – clones need to remain clonable.

Sorry. I wrote: “clones need to remain clonable” – that's incorrect. Clones of FontStructions with Attribution and Attribution-Noncommercial licenses don't have to be made clonable.

The correct statement would have been: “clones of FontStructions with Share-Alike licenses need to have the same license as the original FontStruction”. Since Leaflet Stem has a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alikelicense, Karyotype should be licensed under the same terms (because of the “Share Alike” part).

Great remix Frodo. The Hobbits will surely revel in its cuteness and applaud its playfulness. I really like where some the characters run into one another to form ligatures, like with th, ty, rt & ru. This is especially enhanced by your decision to use the horizontal gaps.

i think this font is unique enough that it should not be bound to the original's license if you feel otherwise. i unshared madison ave. because the original from which i cloned it has an open license. this presents the issue of when a cloned font should be able to use a restricted license when the original uses otherwise, and when the font is still original enough to not be considered merely 'a clone.' if i use and idea or technique, but none of the glyphs are remotely similar to the original's, is that fair? i suppose i will copy and paste into a new file to resolve me dilemma, although i don't really feel i should have to. and it's not that i don't want to credit the original which i will probably do again. i guess these things can be subjective, but there can always be an exception to the rule.

frodo7, funk_king: It doesn't really matter what you guys think, and it's irrelevant if the clone ended up different than the source. Licenses are there to be respected, period. The source for this FontStruction had a Share-Alike license, so you need to share it under the same terms. It's that simple and mechanic. (And as I mentioned in my previous post, the fact that you could choose a different license is a bug, which is being addressed.)

If you, frodo7, don't like the terms under which the original FontStruction was licensed, you shouldn't have cloned it in the first place. Licenses need to be carefully studied and considered up-front. We all need to get used to that.

Of course I can see the differences in the final design, and I do understand your feelings about it's future. (I have done a lot of work on GPL fonts, for example, and I can't change their license either). The solution for you to break free from the viral “Share-Alike” clause would be to rebuild your design from scratch. Small-grid FontStructions such as this one can be built quite quickly (in comparison to high-res ones or ‘real’ outline fonts). Once you have done that, you are free to choose whatever license you want, since it will be 100% your work and effort.

Copy & paste is indeed a grey zone. AFAIK, we don't have any mechanism in place to prevent copy&paste between fonts with incompatible licenses. In this particular case I would consider copy&paste cheating – the brick assembly work would still be someone else's, you just woudn't credit it. I wouldn't feel good about it.

(I'm not a lawyer, so all the above is not legal advice but my personal interpretation as a designer and user.)

Just thinking out loud (in print?), but maybe there should be a feature that the originator of the share-alike licence can authorize a licence change in a clone. Probably too much work for such a rare circumstance, but might be helpful.

Or even a way for the two parties (cloner and clonee) to contact the mods to request such a change?

- Lex

P.S. I love the 'E' in Karyotype. Very wiggly :-)

I have to agree with gf. A clone needs to respect the original license, whatever that maybe. And, yes to Frodo7 on the uniqueness of the new design. But isn't that the point of cloning: to modify the original so that it does end-up as a new font, as Frodo7 has done, based on an existing design. A true clone, or even a minor clone doesn't really do anything new, does it?

There are two things I'd like to see in the future: 1, More license options. 2, the ability for the original designer to know how many of the clones exist for any particular fontstruction, even if they are not yet shared.

@Lex: In pixels! :-) Yes, getting an express permission from the original creator to change the licensing terms could be another (easier) option. I don't know how to formalize that though. Will do some research.

@thalamic: What other license options would you like to have?

I've mentioned this on another thread somewhere here, but I can't remember where...

Anyway, I wished for the ability to give a copy of a font to another specific user.

Then I can make a font public, but not cloneable. However, if there is someone I'm willing to give the "source" to, I can send them a copy.

well you shouldn't feel embarrassed frodo. i don't. it is a legitimate issue. i think we should be able to raise items of particular importance to us without fear ridicule. i would worry less about our understanding of licenses than those who have clearly violated them as we have witnessed recently. they are the ones who deserve contempt and ridicule from the FS community. not us.

One thing no one could ever accuse you of is being ungentlemanly Frodo. You were upfront from the beginning and have dealt with this in an upright and open manner.

Keep on producing you excellent designs and remain the generous, encouraging member of this community that you are.

Frodo, I owe you a big thanks, not just for giving me an opportunity to talk about licensing issues, but also for your fantastic production and your generous comments — THANK YOU!