Adobe, PDF, and competition (was: Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources)
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 04:31:18AM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: When Sebastian presented pdftex at Adobe, they had been amazed that pdftex can do things they cannot do with their own tools (I suppose that Hans Hagen provided some files). This was years ago, but meanwhile Thanh provided many microtypographical extensions. If things evolve in the future as they did in the past, I suppose that pdftex is not good PR for Adobe, it's more likely that they regard pdftex as a competitor. Please drop the debian-x CC on further musings about Adobe and PDF. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 08:08:39AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 03:57:15AM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: Yes. Can TOG be regarded as the legal successor of the X Consortium? From http://www.faqs.org/faqs/x-faq/part1/section-16.html Here is the text of the announcement posted by the Consortium to comp.windows.x on 1 July 1996: X Consortium to Transfer X Window System(tm) to The Open Group So you would say that TOG is the one who now has the right to the fonts ? This is not necessarily the case. The X Consortium transferred rights for the X Window System -- trademarks, copyrights on the code, et al -- to TOG as part of the X.Org process, and then promptly disbanded. The font grant may not have been included in that. Depending on the language, it may not even be transferrable, so we may be stuck with the original no-modification grant, given that the entity holding the rights to it underwent a sudden total existence failure. As a last resort, maybe Thanh can ask Adobe with whom of the X Consortium they negotiated, maybe he can help. If nothing else, they must have a copy of the paperwork around. And no, no-one can find the paperwork. I'd suggest the best bet would be getting Adobe to re-grant those rights to the X.Org Foundation. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Ralf Stubner wrote: I digged into groups.google.com and found the original press release: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.windows.x/browse_thread/thread/d351921a604a4039/a3e406813544b498 Mountain View, Calif. (October 9, 1991) - Adobe Systems Incorporated today announced it has donated four typefaces from its Utopia(R) typeface family in Adobe's Type 1 font format to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's X Consortium. [] Of course, it says nothing about the license agreement between Adobe and the MIT X Consortium. There are several quotes from the README as found in X11R5: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.fonts/browse_thread/thread/e9fb6bf9e7307b55/0fb5cf456fc7c5bb http://groups.google.de/group/comp.fonts/browse_thread/thread/f220077dbf0a69e0/dcce8a6a0702ffdb http://groups.google.de/group/comp.fonts/browse_thread/thread/66b0e1a98caf514f/c3f51fb7aa5641af , | In the interests of furthering standards for the X Window System, Adobe | Systems Incorporated has contributed to the X Consortium and its members | the Adobe typeface software listed below. This Adobe Type 1 font | software donation will now allow users to experience and freely use | traditional high-quality Adobe type in the X Window environment. | | Permission to use, reproduce, display and distribute the listed | typefaces is hereby granted, provided that the Adobe Copyright notice | appears in all whole and partial copies of the software and that the | following trademark symbol and attribution appear in all unmodified | copies of the software: | | Copyright (c) 1989 Adobe Systems Incorporated | Utopia (R) | Utopia is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated | | The Adobe typefaces (Type 1 font program, bitmaps and Adobe Font Metric | files) donated are: | | Utopia Regular | Utopia Italic | Utopia Bold | Utopia Bold Italic | | Adobe Systems Incorporated ` OK, based on this, Adobe still holds the copyrights. It hasn't granted explicit modification permission -- but appears to have intended to, given the word 'unmodfied' in the trademark clause. Perhaps we could simply ask Adobe's legal department for a clarification that this license means that we can make and redistribute modified versions. I think we should be able to get these fonts in Debian proper. Which is more or less what we have on CTAN now. I think it would be good if this were readded to the X.org CVS, so that the utopia fonts could be included in xfonts-scalable-nonfree again. Of course, asking Adobe to clarify the situation would be even better. -- ksig --random| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who is willing to care about the legal stuff. It is a great advantage that Thanh found someone at Adobe who remembers. snip It may have been granted to: * the defunct MIT-based X Consortium, * directly to The Open Group, * X.Org as part of TOG, * X.Org Foundation. All the XOF people swear that they haven't heard of it. If it's trapped in XC, then we're stuffed. If it's deep within the annals of TOG, then they don't know about it on a surface inspection, and it would take absolutely ages to find out either way. If it's within TOG-X.Org, then no-one who was around during those days knows about it, so it's likely been lost. See the problem? Perhaps Thanh's man from Adobe can track down the original Adobe paperwork, which would say who it was granted to (and what was granted). That seems like the most promising route. -- ksig --random| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Quoting Reinhard Kotucha [EMAIL PROTECTED]: David == David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One does not need to mention PDFTeX in that context. But remind me: just what Adobe tool is replaced or endangered by PDFTeX? Do they have a general purpose typesetting program? Do people use typesetting programs for typesetting today? Sure, when they aren't using MS Word. From my personal sample, PageMaker is still the favorite, but the sample is biased towards people whose business is producing coffee-table books with a high ratio of color art and the bare minimum of text. My cousin still sets metal type by hand (in addition to wedding invitations, a big part of his business is fixing mistakes made by big printers in things like corporate annual reports). -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Reinhard Kotucha wrote: David == David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One does not need to mention PDFTeX in that context. But remind me: just what Adobe tool is replaced or endangered by PDFTeX? Do they have a general purpose typesetting program? Do people use typesetting programs for typesetting today? first define typesetting -) Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 03:57:15AM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes. Can TOG be regarded as the legal successor of the X Consortium? From http://www.faqs.org/faqs/x-faq/part1/section-16.html Here is the text of the announcement posted by the Consortium to comp.windows.x on 1 July 1996: X Consortium to Transfer X Window System(tm) to The Open Group So you would say that TOG is the one who now has the right to the fonts ? As a last resort, maybe Thanh can ask Adobe with whom of the X Consortium they negotiated, maybe he can help. If nothing else, they must have a copy of the paperwork around. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Reinhard Kotucha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David == David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since they don't actively market them as far as I know, doing so for something which is presumed to be in the open, anyway, might be good PR. When Sebastian presented pdftex at Adobe, they had been amazed that pdftex can do things they cannot do with their own tools (I suppose that Hans Hagen provided some files). This was years ago, but meanwhile Thanh provided many microtypographical extensions. If things evolve in the future as they did in the past, I suppose that pdftex is not good PR for Adobe, it's more likely that they regard pdftex as a competitor. One does not need to mention PDFTeX in that context. But remind me: just what Adobe tool is replaced or endangered by PDFTeX? Do they have a general purpose typesetting program? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Quoting Reinhard Kotucha [EMAIL PROTECTED]: When Sebastian presented pdftex at Adobe, they had been amazed that pdftex can do things they cannot do with their own tools (I suppose that Hans Hagen provided some files). This was years ago, but meanwhile Thanh provided many microtypographical extensions. If things evolve in the future as they did in the past, I suppose that pdftex is not good PR for Adobe, it's more likely that they regard pdftex as a competitor. In the past, Adobe has fixed Reader bugs that were triggered by files created with TeX (encodings using ASCII NUL, although TeX responded to the bugs with new encodings). Enlightened software vendors understand very well that the user community's investment in workflows forms the basis for long-term success. I suspect Adobe is happy to have the TeX community providing the tools to deal with mathematical typesetting, as the commercial market is probably too small in relation to the cost of developing/maintaining the tools. In my view, current intellectual property law misses the importance of the user community. This creates a danger that users can loose their investment in workflows through the demise of a vendor or outrageous price increases. While I don't think Adobe has immediate plans to cash out on PDF, history shows that successful companies can fail (e.g., by ill-advised moves into areas where they have no competence), leaving intellectual property in limbo, or be taken over by groups who will grab the cash and run. While there is currently little danger of Adobe doing anything to hurt pdftex (and if pdftex was harmed as an unanticipated consequence of some other action, Adobe would probably work to resolve the problem), there is no protection for pdftex from some unrelated business catastrophe. In such an event, pdftex users would be better off than users who rely entirely on Adobe tools. -- George N. White III Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 09:01:53AM -0300, George White wrote: Quoting Reinhard Kotucha [EMAIL PROTECTED]: When Sebastian presented pdftex at Adobe, they had been amazed that pdftex can do things they cannot do with their own tools (I suppose that Hans Hagen provided some files). This was years ago, but meanwhile Thanh provided many microtypographical extensions. If things evolve in the future as they did in the past, I suppose that pdftex is not good PR for Adobe, it's more likely that they regard pdftex as a competitor. In the past, Adobe has fixed Reader bugs that were triggered by files created with TeX (encodings using ASCII NUL, although TeX responded to the bugs with new encodings). Enlightened software vendors understand very well that the user community's investment in workflows forms the basis for long-term success. I suspect Adobe is happy to have the TeX community providing the tools to deal with mathematical typesetting, as the commercial market is probably too small in relation to the cost of developing/maintaining the tools. In my view, current intellectual property law misses the importance of the user community. This creates a danger that users can loose their investment in workflows through the demise of a vendor or outrageous price increases. While I don't think Adobe has immediate plans to cash out on PDF, history shows that successful companies can fail (e.g., by ill-advised moves into areas where they have no competence), leaving intellectual property in limbo, or be taken over by groups who will grab the cash and run. While there is currently little danger of Adobe doing anything to hurt pdftex (and if pdftex was harmed as an unanticipated consequence of some other action, Adobe would probably work to resolve the problem), there is no protection for pdftex from some unrelated business catastrophe. In such an event, pdftex users would be better off than users who rely entirely on Adobe tools. Current acrobat reader (well, it was at least a couple of years ago) licencing forbids it to be distributed alongside other pdf generating tools like pdftex, which is in big part why it was removed from non-free back then. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
David == David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One does not need to mention PDFTeX in that context. But remind me: just what Adobe tool is replaced or endangered by PDFTeX? Do they have a general purpose typesetting program? Do people use typesetting programs for typesetting today? Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-4592165 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Sven Luther wrote: Current acrobat reader (well, it was at least a couple of years ago) licencing forbids it to be distributed alongside other pdf generating tools like pdftex, which is in big part why it was removed from non-free back then. The majority of commercial 3rd party pdf generating tools target Adobe's key markets. Allowing them to include Acrobat Reader could be interpreted as some sort of Adobe endorsement as well as giving them an excuse for sprinkling Adobe logos around in their literature. There is a huge difference between a product that enables pdf for a class of users that would be difficult for Adobe to properly support themselves and products that aim to carve out small chunks of Adobe's key markets. -- George N. White III [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:26:14AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep within TOG: no-one still involved with X today remembers this at all. Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who is willing to care about the legal stuff. It is a great advantage that Thanh found someone at Adobe who remembers. We have a couple of people who deal with legal stuff (a lot of the time it's me sitting there going, 'y'know, all rights reserved and nothing else doesn't bear well for us distributing this'), but the problem in this case is the multitude of organisations. It may have been granted to: * the defunct MIT-based X Consortium, * directly to The Open Group, * X.Org as part of TOG, * X.Org Foundation. All the XOF people swear that they haven't heard of it. If it's trapped in XC, then we're stuffed. If it's deep within the annals of TOG, then they don't know about it on a surface inspection, and it would take absolutely ages to find out either way. If it's within TOG-X.Org, then no-one who was around during those days knows about it, so it's likely been lost. See the problem? Can we not ask the original author to regrant us the rights ? Or clarify the statement ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep within TOG: no-one still involved with X today remembers this at all. Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who is willing to care about the legal stuff. It is a great advantage that Thanh found someone at Adobe who remembers. We have a couple of people who deal with legal stuff (a lot of the time it's me sitting there going, 'y'know, all rights reserved and nothing else doesn't bear well for us distributing this'), but the problem in this case is the multitude of organisations. It may have been granted to: * the defunct MIT-based X Consortium, * directly to The Open Group, * X.Org as part of TOG, * X.Org Foundation. All the XOF people swear that they haven't heard of it. If it's trapped in XC, then we're stuffed. If it's deep within the annals of TOG, then they don't know about it on a surface inspection, and it would take absolutely ages to find out either way. If it's within TOG-X.Org, then no-one who was around during those days knows about it, so it's likely been lost. See the problem? Perhaps the easiest way out is to tell Adobe about the situation and ask them whether they'd consider relicensing those fonts _again_, this time to TUG or Dante, so as to clear up any issues. Since they don't actively market them as far as I know, doing so for something which is presumed to be in the open, anyway, might be good PR. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We have a couple of people who deal with legal stuff (a lot of the time it's me sitting there going, 'y'know, all rights reserved and nothing else doesn't bear well for us distributing this'), but the problem in this case is the multitude of organisations. It may have been granted to: * the defunct MIT-based X Consortium, * directly to The Open Group, * X.Org as part of TOG, * X.Org Foundation. All the XOF people swear that they haven't heard of it. If it's trapped in XC, then we're stuffed. If it's deep within the annals of TOG, then they don't know about it on a surface inspection, and it would take absolutely ages to find out either way. If it's within TOG-X.Org, then no-one who was around during those days knows about it, so it's likely been lost. See the problem? I digged into groups.google.com and found the original press release: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.windows.x/browse_thread/thread/d351921a604a4039/a3e406813544b498 Mountain View, Calif. (October 9, 1991) - Adobe Systems Incorporated today announced it has donated four typefaces from its Utopia(R) typeface family in Adobe's Type 1 font format to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's X Consortium. [] Of course, it says nothing about the license agreement between Adobe and the MIT X Consortium. There are several quotes from the README as found in X11R5: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.fonts/browse_thread/thread/e9fb6bf9e7307b55/0fb5cf456fc7c5bb http://groups.google.de/group/comp.fonts/browse_thread/thread/f220077dbf0a69e0/dcce8a6a0702ffdb http://groups.google.de/group/comp.fonts/browse_thread/thread/66b0e1a98caf514f/c3f51fb7aa5641af , | In the interests of furthering standards for the X Window System, Adobe | Systems Incorporated has contributed to the X Consortium and its members | the Adobe typeface software listed below. This Adobe Type 1 font software | donation will now allow users to experience and freely use traditional | high-quality Adobe type in the X Window environment. | | Permission to use, reproduce, display and distribute the listed typefaces | is hereby granted, provided that the Adobe Copyright notice appears in all | whole and partial copies of the software and that the following trademark | symbol and attribution appear in all unmodified copies of the software: | | Copyright (c) 1989 Adobe Systems Incorporated | Utopia (R) | Utopia is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated | | The Adobe typefaces (Type 1 font program, bitmaps and Adobe Font Metric | files) donated are: | | Utopia Regular | Utopia Italic | Utopia Bold | Utopia Bold Italic | | Adobe Systems Incorporated ` Which is more or less what we have on CTAN now. I think it would be good if this were readded to the X.org CVS, so that the utopia fonts could be included in xfonts-scalable-nonfree again. Of course, asking Adobe to clarify the situation would be even better. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It may have been granted to: * the defunct MIT-based X Consortium, * directly to The Open Group, * X.Org as part of TOG, * X.Org Foundation. Adobe says that it had been granted to the X Consortium. All the XOF people swear that they haven't heard of it. Did you ask on a mailing list? That's what I would do, but if you did already, it doesn't make much sense to ask again. If it's trapped in XC, then we're stuffed. If it's deep within the annals of TOG, then they don't know about it on a surface inspection, and it would take absolutely ages to find out either way. If it's within TOG-X.Org, then no-one who was around during those days knows about it, so it's likely been lost. See the problem? Yes. Can TOG be regarded as the legal successor of the X Consortium? From http://www.faqs.org/faqs/x-faq/part1/section-16.html Here is the text of the announcement posted by the Consortium to comp.windows.x on 1 July 1996: X Consortium to Transfer X Window System(tm) to The Open Group What I mean is this (at least according to German law): If you lease an apartment and the house is sold to someone else, the old leasing contract is still valid. So the new owner of the house cannot ask for more money only because he is the new owner. As I said, I don't know much about the legal stuff. As a last resort, maybe Thanh can ask Adobe with whom of the X Consortium they negotiated, maybe he can help. Regards, Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-4592165 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
David == David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the easiest way out is to tell Adobe about the situation and ask them whether they'd consider relicensing those fonts _again_, this time to TUG or Dante, so as to clear up any issues. Thanh already asked whether he is allowed to distribute modified versions of the fonts and they told him that only the X Consortium can decide. That means that they did not only grant the right to distribute the fonts to the X Consortium, but they donated the fonts with all rights to them and abandon their own rights. Since they don't actively market them as far as I know, doing so for something which is presumed to be in the open, anyway, might be good PR. When Sebastian presented pdftex at Adobe, they had been amazed that pdftex can do things they cannot do with their own tools (I suppose that Hans Hagen provided some files). This was years ago, but meanwhile Thanh provided many microtypographical extensions. If things evolve in the future as they did in the past, I suppose that pdftex is not good PR for Adobe, it's more likely that they regard pdftex as a competitor. Regards, Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-4592165 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep within TOG: no-one still involved with X today remembers this at all. Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who is willing to care about the legal stuff. It is a great advantage that Thanh found someone at Adobe who remembers. So, unless you really, really, really, really, really, really need these fonts, it's not going to be worth the effort. There are some reasons why it's worth some effort: 1. There are not many free fonts designed by people who know how to design fonts. 2. Utopia is one of very few fonts which can be used to typeset mathematics. Math support for Utopia is distributed with TeXLive, but unfortunately users have to download/install Utopia themselves, which is a bit inconvenient. 3. There are only very few fonts which support Vietnamese. Thanh wants to provide a derived font with Vietnamese glyphs. This, and the fact that math support for Utopia already exists, makes this font very usable for Vietnamese. 4. Utopia is distibuted with X11. Quite interesting for tex4ht (LaTeX-HTML converter) users. 5. Debian people are quite careful about licenses. Hence, it would be good if the Utopia license issue can be resolved. It would be a pity if Utopia will not be distributed with Linux due to some license problems while it is part of any other UNIX derivate. Regards, Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-4592165 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep within TOG: no-one still involved with X today remembers this at all. Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who is willing to care about the legal stuff. It is a great advantage that Thanh found someone at Adobe who remembers. We have a couple of people who deal with legal stuff (a lot of the time it's me sitting there going, 'y'know, all rights reserved and nothing else doesn't bear well for us distributing this'), but the problem in this case is the multitude of organisations. It may have been granted to: * the defunct MIT-based X Consortium, * directly to The Open Group, * X.Org as part of TOG, * X.Org Foundation. All the XOF people swear that they haven't heard of it. If it's trapped in XC, then we're stuffed. If it's deep within the annals of TOG, then they don't know about it on a surface inspection, and it would take absolutely ages to find out either way. If it's within TOG-X.Org, then no-one who was around during those days knows about it, so it's likely been lost. See the problem? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you know which person we could contact among the X.org people? More context, please. Which fonts? The Utopia fonts from Adobe: UTBI.pfa UTB_.pfa UTI_.pfa UTRG.pfa Usually they are in in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1. There are two questions (at least): 1. Under which conditions can they be distributed? 2. Is it permitted to modify them (adding support for Vietnamese in this case) if the filename, /FontName, and /UniqueID is changed in each font? Regards, Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-4592165 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:31:13PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you know which person we could contact among the X.org people? More context, please. Which fonts? The Utopia fonts from Adobe: UTBI.pfa UTB_.pfa UTI_.pfa UTRG.pfa Usually they are in in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1. There are two questions (at least): 1. Under which conditions can they be distributed? 2. Is it permitted to modify them (adding support for Vietnamese in this case) if the filename, /FontName, and /UniqueID is changed in each font? The only copyright on these fonts is: Copyright (c) 1989, 1991 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. So, I'd say the answer to both of your questions is 'no'. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 02:24:03AM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only copyright on these fonts is: Copyright (c) 1989, 1991 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. So, I'd say the answer to both of your questions is 'no'. Daniel, I suppose that you didn't follow the discussion from the beginning, so here is the excerpt of a mail from Han The Thanh which he posted to the tex-fonts mailing list: Concerning Adobe Utopia, I did my best to try to find out the answer, but without success: I asked people at Adobe first and got a response saying that they have granted the font license to X Consortium, so now only X Consortium can grant the permission to modify these fonts. I wrote to X.Org and got a response saying that my question is being processed and then nothing (it was a few months ago). So I gave it up. Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep within TOG: no-one still involved with X today remembers this at all. So, unless you really, really, really, really, really, really need these fonts, it's not going to be worth the effort. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [tex-live] Re: License of fonts included in X.org sources
Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only copyright on these fonts is: Copyright (c) 1989, 1991 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. So, I'd say the answer to both of your questions is 'no'. Daniel, I suppose that you didn't follow the discussion from the beginning, so here is the excerpt of a mail from Han The Thanh which he posted to the tex-fonts mailing list: Concerning Adobe Utopia, I did my best to try to find out the answer, but without success: I asked people at Adobe first and got a response saying that they have granted the font license to X Consortium, so now only X Consortium can grant the permission to modify these fonts. I wrote to X.Org and got a response saying that my question is being processed and then nothing (it was a few months ago). So I gave it up. Regards, Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-4592165 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
