On Jan 29, 2004, at 21:31, Branden Robinson wrote:
Adobe is probably busy "lobbying" to get a certain bill passed which
will rectify that little "defect" in U.S. copyright law.
If the Court has any shred of basic literacy left in reading the
Constitution, that should go nowhere. Not sure at t
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 07:10:52PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:19:56AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The comparison is made to altering the ascii mapping -- but the ascii
> > mapping is not copyrightable. It's just a sequence of characters, as
> > valid as a
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:19:56AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The comparison is made to altering the ascii mapping -- but the ascii
> mapping is not copyrightable. It's just a sequence of characters, as
> valid as any other and preferred only because of broad adoption.
>
> Are these CMa
The comparison is made to altering the ascii mapping -- but the ascii
mapping is not copyrightable. It's just a sequence of characters, as
valid as any other and preferred only because of broad adoption.
Are these CMap files actually copyrightable as creative works?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
O Xoves, 29 de Xaneiro de 2004 ás 17:06:06 +0900, Kenshi Muto escribía:
> Do you have any idea to cope with this situation? Or does anyone come
> up with possible proposal so that Adobe can be persuaded? I
> appreciate your help.
They claim that integrity of the CMap files is the main issue. W
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Masayuki Hatta and some of Japanese are considering how to treat Adobe
CMap files. CMap is very important for CJK Ghostscript/PDF, but is
non-free on Debian because this license says 'not altered'.
Hatta has asked to Adobe has responsibility
6 matches
Mail list logo
