Type Design recognizes the following font spacings:
monospaced — all glyphs the same width
duospaced — set of glyph widths is {n, 2n}, n>0
trispaced — set of glyph widths is {0, n, 2n}, n>0
proportional — not monospaced, duospaced, or trispaced
split duospaced — like duospaced, but the two widths are in separate monospaced fonts

For duospaced fonts, the amount of halfwidth and fullwidth characters is given.
For trispaced fonts, the amount of zerowidth, halfwidth, and fullwidth characters is given.
For split duospaced fonts, overlap subtracted from count is given.

List of TrueType font families offered by Type Design:

Font				Spacing		Character set		# of characters

DMCA Sans Serif 8.1		monospaced	Subset2			1193
DMCA Sans Serif 9.0		monospaced	Subset3+		3309
Custom Font ttf 1.0		monospaced	Subset1			678
Custom Font ttf 2.0		monospaced	Subset2			1193
Custom Font ttf 3.0		monospaced	Subset3			2823
Riglos Mono 1.0			monospaced	LPTT-1&Subset1		2005
Riglos Mono 1.1			monospaced	LPTT-1.1		2201
Riglos Mono 1.3			monospaced	LPTT-1.3		3501
Riglos Mono 1.4			monospaced	LPTT-1.4		3996
TD bitmaps 1.5			monospaced	Subset2			1193
Fifaks 1.0			monospaced	SULLIVAN-4		20090
Kissinger 13.06			duospaced	???			59279 (8814+50465)
Kissinger JP 13.06		duospaced	???			59582 (8814+50768)
Kissinger Upper 13.06		duospaced	???			17167 (7739+9428)=
Bogosian Excelsior 6.91		duospaced	BHFEU-1			3674 (906+2768)
Tayo 10.0			duospaced	LGCVTK			3701 (805+2896)
Moshita 1.0			duospaced	???			4294 (1841+2453)
Moshita 5.62			duospaced	???			4444 (1966+2478)
Moshita Mono 5.62		monospaced	???+Subset1		4490
Kissinger 2 dev1		monospaced	Subset2			1193
Kissinger 2 dev2		monospaced	Subset3			2823
Kissinger 2 dev3		split duospaced	Subset3+&Japanese	10381 (3309+7326−254)
Kissinger 2 dev4		split duospaced	???			21911 (8450+14724−1263)
Kissinger 2 alt dev1		split duospaced	???			5223 (2718+2781−276)
Kissinger 2 alt dev2		split duospaced	???			5852 (3347+2781−276)
Kissinger 2 alt dev3		split duospaced	???			6013 (3508+2781−276)
Kissinger 2 alt dev4		split duospaced	???			7246 (4741+2781−276)
Zamira v1			monospaced	???₧			896
Zamira v2			monospaced	???			1258

Copyright infringements (removed from the website, but might get non-CI updates later):

Elementary Mono 1.0		monospaced	KRA-1.0			999
Elementary Mono 1.1		monospaced	KRA-1.1			1098
Elementary Mono 1.2		monospaced	KRA-1.2			1351
Elementary Mono 1.3 SA		monospaced	KRA-1.3			2631
Elementary Mono 1.3 O		duospaced	KRA-1.3			2631 (2464+167)
Elementary Mono 1.4 SA		monospaced	KRA-2			2774
Elementary Mono 1.4 O		duospaced	KRA-2			2774 (2607+167)
Elementary Mono 1.4 MG		trispaced	KRA-2			2774 (5+2602+167)
C.O.D. Tashkent F.P.S. 11	proportionalº	ASHB-EE11		1345
C.O.D. Tashkent F.P.S. 13 	monospaced	ANSH-EE55		1997
C.O.D. Tashkent F.P.S. 13 JD	duospaced	ANSH-EE55		1997 (1891+106) @
C.O.D. Tashkent F.P.S. 14 	monospaced	ANSJ			2411
C.O.D. Tashkent F.P.S. 14 JD	duospaced	ANSJ			2411 (2305+106)
Noth 5.63			monospaced	???			1954
Ava Bekker 5.90			monospaced	SIMP-LATN		991
Ava Bekker 5.94			monospaced	PAN GSCII		2324
Kalim Nakoyah 4.178		duospaced	JOYO-JIN		3997 (454+3543)
TD HeiTi 1.0 			duospaced	???№			4998 (680+4318)
TD Goshikku 1.0			duospaced	???			4973 (632+4341)

List of font families that might be released in the future:

Font				Spacing		Character set		# of characters (minimum)

Custom Font ttf 3.1		monospaced	Subset3.1		3309
Custom Font ttf 4.0		monospaced	Subset4			3929
Custom Font ttf 5.0		monospaced	Subset5			15327
DMCA Sans Serif 10.0		monospaced	Subset5			15327
TD square‡			monospaced	Subset1+TSCII		???
TD square bitmapsª		monospaced	Subset1+TSCII		???
TD bitmaps 3.0			monospaced	ANSH-EE55 except Hebrew	???
TD bitmaps 9.01			monospaced	ANSJ			2411
Elementary Mono 1.5		monospaced	???			2999
C.O.D. Tashkent F.P.S. 15 	monospaced	ANSJ-EE02		2774
Ava Bekker 6.81			monospaced	PAN GSCII 1.1		2525
Ava Bekker 6.90			monospaced	PAN TSCII**		2888
Ava Bekker 8.1			monospaced	???			3997
Kalim Nakoyah 5.0		duospaced	???			4441
Cullen D 1.0			???		???			same as the original Cullen???~
TD Dotum			???		??? 			???
TD HeiSAR 			???		??? 			???
Moshita 8.99			duospaced	???			5000 (???+???)
Kissinger 2 dev5		split duospaced	???			??? (???+???−???)

º U+0307 is zerowidth due to glitching
‡ a square font family, where font width is the same as the font height, 
intended as an unconditional replacement for an unusable font.
ª a square font family like ‡ but it's in bitmaps. (8×8, 7×7, 6×6, 9×9, etc.)
** TSCII are the 299 characters in Latha 5.90 but not the 300 with Windows 8 
onwards (manage optional features in Windows 10-)
@ this font used to be controversial and fullwidth was not 200%, it's fixed now
$ with Kanji and symbols from Kissinger
= the only BMP printable characters are space and NBSP
~ in controversial status
are the non-marking return (0009) and the line feed
№ Contains the List Of Frequently Used Characters In Modern Chinese, a standard 
that existed in Mainland China from 1988 to 2013 and there was also another one 
(Commonly), of 7000, when it was replaced by a list with 8105 defined CJK 
ideographs in 2013 called the Table Of General Standard Chinese Characters
₧ lacks Subset1, which is bugfixed in Zamira v2

• Riglos (proportional, 1999 characters) by Uo Key (trademark: all rights 
reserved, but Type Design has permission)
• SimIti (proportional, 5581 characters) by HughLaurie1959
• Manhattan Transfer (proportional, 1998 BMP and other SMP characters) by 
HughLaurie1959
• Cullen (proportional, 4486 characters) by HughLaurie1959 (sfd)

• Unifont criticism:

Unifont is unusable due to many design flaws as well as anti-competitive practices. Paul Hardy refused self-promotion due to their anti-competitive ideology, just like RebeccaRGB. In fact, RebeccaRGB is one of the Unifont contributors, and they are responsible for the Unifont design flaws in the slopes. As of Unifont 15.1.05, Unifont has bad slopes (unchanged since 14.0.02). In the pixel chart that they made, they failed to correctly apply the pixel center rule, resulting in the third iteration of bad slopes (the first being in 13.0.01, the second being from 13.0.02 to 14.0.01). However, it is evident that the Type Design pixel center chart predated the Unifoundry pixel center chart made for 14.0.02, as evident in the Unifont criticism page in 2022-01-06 which demonstrated bad slopes in Unifont 14.0.01, way before the Paul Hardy’s faulty chart and update was released. I even submitted a contribution that fixed all of the slopes back in 2020-12-28, however, Paul Hardy rejected it by discriminating against ethical fontdevelopmental practices, so it is highly unlikely that the Unifont slopes are ever going to be fixed. Since Unifont’s contribution service is known to discriminate against competitive type designers, this reduces the overall competence of the contributors, leaving behind many design flaws. The most important optical consideration in typography is by far consistency. However, Unifont as of 15.1.05 has the following consistency errors (not an exhaustive list since there’s way too many design flaws to find them all):
• bad ascender height: ßȟβδζθλξϕ
• bad cap height: ÞФἎἏἮἯἾἿὟὮὯᾎᾏᾞᾟᾮᾯ
• bad x-height: ɥʞἆἇἦἧἶἷὦὧᾆᾇᾖᾗᾦᾧѱ
• bad baseline: ɥʞṰḀḁ
• bad descender height: ɲʃʄʅʆϱ
• unslashed superscript/subscript zero in ⁰₀ inconsistent with slashed zero in 0; due to ideological reasons, this will never be fixed
• `ẀẁỲỳ have inconsistent grave accent letterform than ÀÈÌÒÙàèìòùЀЍѐѝ
• ´Ẃẃ have inconsistent acute accent letterform than ÁÉÍÓÚÝáéíóúýĆćĹĺŃńŔশŹźǼǽǾǿЃЌѓќ
• ȦȧȮȯḂḃḊḋḞḟḢḣṀṁṄṅṖṗṘṙṠṡṠṡṨṩṪṫẆẇẊẋẎẏẛ have inconsistent dot accent letterform than ijĊċĠġįİijŻżі
• ˆˇ are lower than any actual circumflex and caron accents used above the base letterform in accented letters
• inconsistent glyph inverses (bad slopes are also demonstrated in detail in the images below):
•○◢◣🬼🬽🬿🭀🭁🭂🭄🭅🭇🭈🭊🭋🭌🭍🭏🭐🭨🭩🭪🭫🮚✓
◘◙◤◥🭒🭓🭕🭖🭗🭘🭚🭛🭝🭞🭠🭡🭢🭣🭥🭦🭬🭭🭮🭯🮛🮱
• inconsistent base letterforms: HĦ, sś, AǺ, aǻ, UɄ, VɅ, εέ, HḢ, HḪ, hḫ, WẆ, AẠ, etc.
• ꟲꟳꟴ inconsistent superscript alignment than ⁰¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹ᴬᴮᴰᴱᴳᴴᴵᴶᴷᴸᴹᴺᴼᴾᴿᵀᵁⱽᵂ
• inconsistent triangle in ▶▷◀◁ than ►▻◄◅ (note: ►▻◄◅ are the canonical forms due to ►◄ being in CP437 and WGL4)
• double line path intersection in ╫ inconsistent with ╟╢╬, and in ╪ inconsistent with ╤╧╬
• inconsistent square: ■□◫◻◼, ▪▫◽◾
• box drawing arrows unusable due to ←→ misaligned with ─┌┐└┘├┤┬┴┼╓╖╙╜╟╢╥╨╫ (note: ⎯ as opposed to ─ is not in most legacy computing platforms with box drawing arrows)

Other design flaws:
• superscripts and subscripts optically too small for mathematical purposes (Type Design recommends superscript/subscript black body height about 85%—95% of base height, so in Kissinger 2 the xheight/capheight/ascenderheight is 8/10/11 in base and 7/9/10 in first level superscript/subscript, whereas in Unifont it’s 8/10/11 in base and 5/7/7 in superscript/subscript)
• bad underline position and height of 0÷64em and 1÷64em (note: underline spans 0÷64em—−1÷64em from underlinePosition and underlineThickness fields in post table, font top is 56÷64em and font bottom is −8÷64em from usWinAscent and usWinDescent respectively in OS/2 table, pixel size is 4÷64em, making the underline 1÷4 pixel and therefore misaligned to pixel grid)
• bad fullwidth in ℮⌀〈〉☐☑☒✓✗ and soft hyphen (note: ­℮ in WGL4, ­⌀〈〉☐☑☒✓✗ in SECS, ✓ inconsistent with 🮱, soft hyphen is one byte in CP850) — Unifont is therefore unusable for character grid terminals of many encodings (Unix-like terminals do not adhere to character grid like DOS and Win32 console does)
• zerowidth combining characters creating a fake combining effect when Unifont has no OpenType feature for combining

The general rule for rasterization is that the pixel center becomes the value. As it turns out, in 8×16 size, none of the slopes pass through pixel centers, meaning they can all be rasterized unambiguously. Not only are the slopes symmetric this way, but they also have proper inverses being equal to each other. However, this is not what is happening in Unifont. Instead, RebeccaRGB arbitrarily inserted or removed pixels with symmetry but otherwise no logical pattern (inverses like 25E2 and 25E4 fail).

First of all, the 1∶1 character (1∶2 pixel) slopes:

In Unifont, they are instead like this:

The Bright Red ✗ denotes bad pixel. Notice how pairs of characters that are supposed to be inverses are not: 25E2 to 25E4, 25E3 to 25E5, etc. which is a result of badly drawn slopes.

Next are the 3∶2 character (3∶4 pixel) slopes:

However, in Unifont they are instead as the following:

The Bright Green rectangles indicate the periodic pixel patterns, which are broken in Unifont.

Then the 3∶1 character (3∶2 pixel) slopes:

Which in Unifont displays as follows:

Once again, for no apparent reason the periodic patterns and inverse relationship are broken.

Finally, the 3∶4 character (3∶8 pixel) slopes and the 1∶2 character (1∶4 pixel) slopes:

Unifont breaks it the following way:

Which demonstrates that Unifont has bad slopes. Note that I submitted a contribution before with all the correct slopes.

Any attempt to submit bugs for any of the Unifont design flaws will only make the conflict even worse in the long term, since supporting Unifont implicitly reduces users’ chance of getting informed about competitive fonts like Kissinger 2. Kissinger 2 already has all the correct slopes in version dev4. Therefore there is no reason to contribute to Unifont, making Kissinger 2 contributions the better option. Note that whereas Paul Hardy and RebeccaRGB are perpetuating the anti-competitive practices, the other Unifont contributors are considered victims; therefore we are making sure to provide a seamless transition from Unifont contribution to Kissinger 2 contribution.

Paul Hardy also made a false memorandum on the copyright rights allegedly enforced (SHA256: 54b5fe42e800aa20d56f546cca71cd70e21e9d6fdd67eb957b88b3f31347d7fd; it is highly likely that the memorandum will be changed in future). Typography is very commonly found in all sorts of user interfaces, and by attempting to enforce unenforcable rights on the raw typographical glyphs, Paul Hardy is denying users freedom to text, which is an essential user interface component. The anti-competitive practices of Unifont affect the entirety of GNU community, which makes Paul Hardy and RebeccaRGB have virtually all the influence on Unicode 8×16 and 16×16 bitmap typography in GNU. GNU user interfaces therefore have a distinctive look and feel that can be attributed to Paul Hardy and RebeccaRGB. The memorandum makes claims that a certain font infringes on Unifont due to Unifont being software. That font is not named in the memorandum, but from the context it can be inferred that it is Kissinger (not Kissinger 2, which didn’t exist at the time). The memorandum claims that fonts are generally protected as a “computer program”. However, the notion of fonts as computer software only applies to outline fonts, not bitmap fonts. Though Unifont does have outline releases (in both the deprecated ttf files and in otf files), while directly modifying Unifont’s outlines or utilities is a derivative work of Unifont and must be done under license terms for it to be legal, the bitmap form of the glyphs is uncopyrightable; unlike outlines, bitmaps in their generic form do not represent any “creative programming achievement”. After doing Autotrace/Potrace on the uncopyrightable bitmap glyphs and further patches by Type Design, the Type Design’s result is new software (Kissinger) that is not legally related with Unifont, as new software was generated from Autotrace of uncopyrightable bitmaps, not derived from Unifont outlines. This is also the same technique that was used to make certain other Type Design fonts like DMCA Sans Serif and Fifaks, so this legal precedent of uncopyrightable abstract letterforms has always been critical for Type Design. In other words, fonts are copyrightable, but typefaces are not, and abstract bitmaps are the latter as they have neither outlines nor bytecode that would qualify it for being software. Even other GNU fonts such as FreeSerif/FreeSans/FreeMono have been indirectly cloned from incompatible licensed fonts such as Times/Helvetica/Courier; such font cloning is not a copyright infringement, and neither is Kissinger. It is ironic that in the memorandum itself, Paul Hardy (an obvious representative of both GNU and impersonating ‘Bird & Bird LLP’) has embedded the copyrightable TrueType outline and bytecode of Georgia, a Microsoft font, instead of embedding their own GNU fonts. Unlike in Kissinger, where no actual copyrightable portion of Unifont is used, the memorandum includes copyrightable Microsoft software data. GNU therefore does copyright infringement by distributing proprietary Microsoft software, unlike Type Design which does not distribute any GNU software or derivative works thereof. However, while Kissinger is not discontinued, it is deprecated, and it is recommended to use Kissinger 2 instead as it avoids GNU design flaws. Using Kissinger 2 instead of Kissinger also avoids the distinctive GNU look and feel, replacing it with Type Design look and feel, which avoids controversial GNU ideological design choices and makes it more memorable as a separate non-GNU experience and does not implicitly support anti-competitive software such as GNU.

The memorandum also makes claims of Unifont having ‘GNU bitmap letterforms’, but they are not copyrightable, since it is impossible to copyright abstract typographical shapes (which bitmaps can be losslessly expressed as). For example, there are many Windows screenshots and videos that contain renders of Microsoft fonts; in any screenshot that depicts renders of copyrighted fonts, what is on the screenshot is not the font software itself like in the memorandum, but its uncopyrightable output (bitmaps). Rasterizing Unifont outlines to uncopyrightable bitmaps is no exception. There is absolutely no copyrightability in typographical bitmaps. They are not ‘creative programming achievement’ like TrueType/OpenType outlines and bytecode are, they are simply generic 0×16, 8×16, and 16×16 arrays of bilevel pixels. Even more absurd in the memorandum are the claims of Unifont having ‘GNU icon designs’, but it’s evident that there is no such thing, as all glyphs in the font are assigned to Unicode characters, therefore each implicitly has a practical typographical purpose, not an artistic purpose. For GNU to have copyrighted icons, they would have to be clearly separated and detached from the Unicode encoding. Even though typographical glyphs and icons tend to have very similar software implementations due to both of them being typically implemented as graphical objects of finite size, they are legally distinct and all Unicode characters are typographical, not iconic, due to representing text. Text is an essential component of a user interface and the raw typographical shapes and metrics used to form text cannot be copyrighted at all. All claims of Unifont having ‘fine art’ and ‘peculiar aesthetic content’ are nullified not only by the low resolution (0×16, 8×16, or 16×16 per glyph, which is no more than 32 bytes), but also by Unicode characters having practical purposes in typographical typesetting. Putting the glyphs in a font meant to represent Unicode/CSUR glyphs signifies the uncopyrightable intent of these glyphs being used in generic text and nullifies any claims of them being ‘icons’. The only way that typographical bitmaps could be subjected to intellectual property rights is if a patent had been registered on them prior to the release. However, that is highly unlikely and there is no evidence of such a patent ever being registered in case of Unifont.

Not only does Paul Hardy discriminate against competitive practices, he also presents a highly distorted view of what competition is like to discourage users from competitive practices. In https://savannah.gnu.org/support/index.php?110411: “I have no intention of falling prey to someone making such threats.”; Paul Hardy portrays competition as a ‘threat’ to his anti-competitive plans to presumably make Unifont the only resource that the GNU community (or even all ‘free software’ users) ever will use for 0×16, 8×16, and 16×16 glyphs. If anything, the only way to actually fall ‘prey’ to being requested to self-promote is to use anti-competitive ideology to refuse to self-promote, which is exactly what he did in order to discourage all GNU users from ever using or even finding out about competing fonts and deprive the community from typographical critical thinking. It is only ethical to seize the opportunity to self-promote competitive software whenever possible, it is unethical to deliberately refuse to self-promote in order to deprive users of finding out about competition. Paul Hardy also claims to be representative of all the entire ‘free software community’, falsely claiming that competitive software and critical thinking is harmful to all ‘free software’ developers, in effect completely twisting the typical claim that a GPL copyright infringement is harmful and misapplying it to a non-infringing situation to artificially manipulate the GNU reputation of competitive software. The harmful consequences of a GPL copyright infringement are the potential creation of proprietary derivative works and the inability for them to be incorporated in GPL software. On the other hand, font cloning as was done for Kissinger does not have such harmful consequences, as any modified version of Kissinger glyphs is itself going to be uncopyrightable, and even if the glyphs in a derivative work of Kissinger were turned into a copyrightable form, even by breaking constraints of bitmaps, they could be always turned back to uncopyrightable bitmaps by rasterizing. Therefore there cannot possibly be any legal or moral consequences to font cloning. Such anti-competitive practices have overwhelmingly large influence over GNU community because they in turn cause other GNU users to also reject the possibility of competition, giving Paul Hardy and RebeccaRGB too much influence over 0×16, 8×16, and 16×16 bitmap typography in the entirety of GNU community. In https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16205: “Now I vaguely recall something... You see, Savannah is the software forge for the GNU Project, we can't afford hosting packages whose maintainers are so expressly hostile to our project.” ineiev has been manipulated by Paul Hardy to reject all competition on the basis of vague claims, which implies subliminal anti-competitive manipulation, and this behavior is clearly the opposite of ‘freedom’ that GNU claimed to provide. That’s why ‘free software’ is not always ‘freedom’. This leaves a conclusion that GNU is unethical due to being anti-competitive, and the conflict is caused not by competition, but by lack thereof. The conflict is likely to have been there all along since Paul Hardy took over Unifont, way before Kissinger or Kissinger 2 existed. The existence of competitive software such as Kissinger 2 is endangered by anti-competitive forces of GNU. Type Design therefore highly recommends users to use competitive software, such as Kissinger 2 as the 8×16 and 16×16 glyph resource, and aside from Type Design, users could use Windows as the operating system, and Digital Mars or Open Watcom as the C++ compiler. At this point it’s evident that competitive software options are more sustainable options than GNU software in the long term. All users have the right to make and use competitive software, and in fact it is encouraged for users to make competition of Type Design software as well and self-promote it. Contributing glyphs to Unifont is highly detrimental to 8×16 and 16×16 bitmap typography. Contributing glyphs to Kissinger 2 is somewhat helpful; making a competitor with 8×16 and 16×16 glyphs of your own and self-promoting it upon request is significantly more helpful.