oj@apollo.uucp (Ellis Oliver Jones) (01/01/70)
It's my understanding that Adobe's "font machinery," meaning the format in which they store their own outline fonts and the algorithms which they use to rasterize those outlines, is a closely-held trade secret (almost as secret as the formula for Classic Coke :-) ). A lot of companies are making PostScript clones, but I seriously doubt whether any of them are using exactly the same font machinery that Adobe uses. Of course, some of the clone-makers may distinguish their products in the market by claiming that their proprietary font machinery or their selection of "native" fonts is superior to Adobe's. The paper by Charles Bigelow, "Commentary: Typeface protection" appeared in last March's first issue of the PostScript Language Journal (Vol 1, No 1), p 28. ---- My opinions are my own, not my employer's.
elwell@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Clayton Elwell) (01/01/70)
peter@dalcsug.UUCP (Peter Philip) writes:
Given all of this, would it not be possible to write a PS interpreter for
, say, the IBM PC; purchase the REAL fonts from Adobe; get a cheap
non-postscript laser printer and *poof* have a postscript capable printer?
It seems to me, that if the interpreter was sold cheaply, it would bring
postscript capability to the masses. Where are the faults in my logic?
BTW - I realize that PS takes up lots of RAM but there are 2Mb expansion
boards for the IBM and PC's such as the Amiga have no trouble with RAM
expansion.
Peter Philip
The biggest fault in your logic is that Adobe fonts (and Apple's
bitmap smoothing routine) are encrypted (not straight PostScript), and
Adobe is not giving out the encryption algorithm. Since I appreciate
the effort that goes into producing a beautiful typeface (especially
on a 300 dpi printer), I say, "fair enough." Fonts produced with
Fontographer should work OK, and I understand that Bitstream has a set
of fonts for PostScript printers that are "close enough" to Times
Roman & Helvetica for most purposes (the new GCC printer uses them, as
well).
--
Clayton M. Elwell
The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
(614) 292-6546 UUCP: ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!elwell
ARPA: elwell@ohio-state.arpa (not working well right now)jvs@micas.UUCP (Jo stockley) (09/23/87)
A simple question. It appears to me that Postscript is owned by Adobe Inc. It also seems that to implement PostScript one needs a license from Adobe. It further appears that said license costs a hell of a lot (circa 100,000 dollars) of ackers. All this being the case how does anybody expect PostScript to become any sort of standard. Why not bite the bullet and place it in the public domain free of any charge. If it has any future people will jump at the chance to get it. It's no good saying that it has become THE standard if Johnny small-time computers Inc. can't afford to implement it. This is just the way I feel. I think postscript is good, but why should I have to pay to implement it on my window system (from scratch)! If something is to be a real standard there should be NO restrictions about implementation so long as the implementation confirms to the standard. All flames to /dev/null, I'm only letting off steam. Jo. -- ------------- Jo. Stockley. (jvs@micas.uucp or ...!mcvax!ukc!micas!jvs) Nodecrest Computer Systems Ltd Byfleet, UK. Phone: +44 09323 40555
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (09/27/87)
In article <535@micas.UUCP> jvs@micas.UUCP (Jo stockley) writes: > It appears to me that Postscript is owned by Adobe Inc. [etc] All this > being the case how does anybody expect PostScript to become any sort of > standard. Why not bite the bullet and place it in the public domain free > of any charge. PostScript (almost certainly a trademark) is indeed owned by Adobe. Adobe makes their money by licensing PS to printer manufactures. Adobe also sells a few end-user software products (TransScript, Illustrator, and various fonts) but I'd venture to guess that the income from those products is minimal compared to their printer controller licensing. I suppose putting PS in the public domain would indeed speed its acceptance by the industry as a standard. In certain respects, I suppose this would make Adobe happy. On the other hand, it would deprive Adobe of its major source of income and they would quickly go out of business. I don't see anything wrong with the idea of a company designing a good product, making money off of it, and having it adopted as an industry standard. Ethernet's a standard but lots of people make money off of it. Unix is a standard and lots of people make money off of that too. As far as money-grubbing capitalists (:-)) go, Adobe doesn't seem to be a bad bunch of people to work with. Then again, I've never tried negotiating with them to license PS for a printer I plan on selling. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
gaynor@topaz.rutgers.edu (Silver) (09/27/87)
jvs@micas.UUCP (Jo stockley) writes: > It appears to me that Postscript is owned by Adobe Inc. It also > seems that to implement PostScript one needs a license from Adobe. > It further appears that said license costs a hell of a lot (circa > 100,000 dollars) of ackers. Please excuse my ignorance... If I wanted to write my *own* PostScript interpreter (I don't, actually), I would require licensing from Adobe? It wouldn't be enough to merely accredit the design of the language to Adobe? Or have I misinterpreted what you're saying? Silver. LOOKING FOR ENTRY-LEVELISH C/LISP PROGRAMMING, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING Andy Gaynor 201-545-0458 81 Hassart St, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 gaynor@topaz.rutgers.edu ...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!gaynor "There is no Editor but Emacs, and Lisp is its Prophet."
steele@unc.cs.unc.edu (Oliver Steele) (09/27/87)
[Note: I've added comp.lang.postscript to the newsgroup list and
redirected follow-ups there.]
I believe that Adobe has placed PostScript in the public domain and just
charges for its implementation. Adobe's fonts, on the other hand, are
not public domain, and Adobe can expect to hold onto a significant
portion of the market because Adobe's fonts are standard and nobody
else's are likely to become so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Steele ...!{decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!unc!steele
steele%unc@mcnc.org
"It takes three to hierarchy." -- John Smite kent@decwrl.dec.com (Christopher A. Kent) (09/28/87)
Excuse me? PostScript may be a trademark, and the cost of having them develop and implementation for you may be $100,000, but neither of these facts stop you from going out and developing your own implementation. That's what Sun did. That's what some folks at Berkeley did. All it takes is careful reading of the Red Book and lots of hacking. What these second-source implementations don't have is Adobe's font outlines, which makes them less than terribly useful for some people. -- Chris Kent Western Research Laboratory Digital Equipment Corporation kent@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!kent (415) 853-6639
lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) (09/28/87)
Independent implementations of PostScript may not have the real
analytic PS fonts, but it shouldn't be very difficult to supply
analytic fonts with the same character dimensions as the real
ones. This would give you most of what you want in a screen
previewer. If the Berkeley folks would just release source, I'd
take a crack at this.
Greg Lee
U.S.mail: 562 Moore Hall, Dept. of Linguistics, Univ. of Hawaii, HONO, HI 96822
INTERNET: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
UUCP: {ihnp4,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!lee
BITNET: lee%uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu@rutgers.eduzwicky@tut.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <15085@topaz.rutgers.edu> gaynor@topaz.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes: >jvs@micas.UUCP (Jo stockley) writes: >> It appears to me that Postscript is owned by Adobe Inc. It also >> seems that to implement PostScript one needs a license from Adobe. >> It further appears that said license costs a hell of a lot (circa >> 100,000 dollars) of ackers. > >Please excuse my ignorance... If I wanted to write my *own* >PostScript interpreter (I don't, actually), I would require licensing >from Adobe? It wouldn't be enough to merely accredit the design of >the language to Adobe? Or have I misinterpreted what you're saying? > >Silver. You have correctly interpreted what he is saying; he's just wrong. At least, there exist several PostScript clones, none of them called PostScript (the name belongs to Adobe) and none of them using Adobe's implementation, but all of them accept almost exactly the same input. So it would be possible to write one's own PostScript-like language interpreter. It could in fact, duplicate the functionality of Adobe's PostScript identically. It could not, however, be called PostScript, and you could not consult any version of Adobe's code before doing so. As for this keeping PostScript from becoming a standard, now that IBM is using it, I doubt that anything can keep it from becoming a printer standard. (I seem to remember hearing of non-Adobe PostScript clone controllers, however) It may not become a standard graphics language, but I doubt anything ever will do that. Elizabeth D. Zwicky (supposedly zwicky@cis.ohio-state.edu) This is filler just in case.
dave@viper.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <255@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes: >So it would be possible to write one's own >PostScript-like language interpreter. It could in fact, duplicate >the functionality of Adobe's PostScript identically. Not quite, it couldn't duplicate the Font's that Adobe uses, they are copyrighted. They could have the same form-factor however. -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S. Truman | | amdahl --!meccts!viper!dave | rutgers / Copyright 1987 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/05/87)
In article <170@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes: >In article <255@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes: > >So it would be possible to write one's own > >PostScript-like language interpreter. It could in fact, duplicate > >the functionality of Adobe's PostScript identically. > >Not quite, it couldn't duplicate the Font's that Adobe uses, >they are copyrighted. They could have the same form-factor >however. Not quite not quite. You cant copyright font designs in the US. You can copyright the ACTUAL binaries, and you can trademark the name, but thats as far as it goes. As has been pointed out previously, having the real Adobe fonts is only half of it. Its the secret magic fudge that Adobe does to those fonts that is going to set PostScript apart from the clones. >-- >Copyright 1987 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved -- Richard J. Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition..."
mrh@camcon.uucp (Mark Hughes) (10/05/87)
in article <61@bacchus.DEC.COM>, kent@decwrl.dec.com (Christopher A. Kent) says: > > Excuse me? PostScript may be a trademark, and the cost ... > ... may be $100,000, but neither of these facts > stop you from going out and developing your own implementation. That's what Sun > did. That's what some folks at Berkeley did. All it takes is careful reading > of the Red Book and lots of hacking. Phoenix, authors of a cloned BIOS for *the* PC, have started marketing a clone of PostScript. Hopefully this will result in some cheaper laser printers emerging before long. I read somewhere that in addition to the large initial licence fee, manufacturers have to pay Adobe a royalty of several hundred dollars per printer. Mark Hughes Sorry, I don't have a witty sign off message!
greenber@swatsun (Peter Greenberg) (10/06/87)
In article <170@viper.Lynx.MN.Org>, dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: > In article <255@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes: > >So it would be possible to write one's own > >PostScript-like language interpreter. It could in fact, duplicate > >the functionality of Adobe's PostScript identically. > > Not quite, it couldn't duplicate the Font's that Adobe uses, > they are copyrighted. They could have the same form-factor > however. I just reread a long and detailed paper by one Charles Bigelow posted to the Usenet earlier this year. Bigelow is a professor of digital typography at Stanford. (Sorry folks, more advanced reference not available.) The gist of what he said (as I have heard from others) is that fonts cannot be protected by copyright law and generally are not patented as well. Font names can be trademarked, meaning that in general I can imitate a font made by you but cannot call us the same thing. Also, the *description* of fonts can be copyrighted, just like computer programs can be so protected. So the byte by byte representation of Adobe's font dictionaries (around which elaborate security precautions have been built into the PostScript language) are protected by copyright. What this all means to a PostScript cloner could take printed representations of the "Adobe" fonts (all of which, I think, were originally developed by others, like IBM (Courier) and ITC (several)) and reduce them to curves himself (not at all a trivial undertaking). The cloner could then incorporate these new font descriptions into his new language legally, so long as he gave them new names. BTW, PostScript(tm) accomodates bit-map fonts too, and the Hershey outline fonts by NBS are available for little or nothing, so you can make due without curving anything. All this is speculative and does not consider any ethical stuff which you should consider. Look before you leap. fonts into his language legally so long as he endowed them with new names. -- Peter Greenberg, ImClone Systems, 180 Varick St., 7th Fl. New York, NY 10014 UUCP: ...{{seismo | inhp4}!bpa | {sun | rutgers}!liberty}!swatsun!greenber ARPA: swatsun!greenber@bpa.BELL-ATL.COM CSNET: greenber@swatsun.swarthmore.edu I work for ImClone, graduated from Swarthmore, neither cares what I say.
peter@dalcsug.UUCP (10/07/87)
In article <1757@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <170@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes: >>In article <255@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes: >> >So it would be possible to write one's own >> >PostScript-like language interpreter. It could in fact, duplicate >> >the functionality of Adobe's PostScript identically. >> >>Not quite, it couldn't duplicate the Font's that Adobe uses, >>they are copyrighted. They could have the same form-factor >>however. > >As has been pointed out previously, having the real Adobe fonts is only half >of it. Its the secret magic fudge that Adobe does to those fonts that is >going to set PostScript apart from the clones. > > >>Copyright 1987 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved >-- >Richard J. Sexton This seems to sugest that the Adobe interpreter does something special when it renders the fonts, correct?? Given all of this, would it not be possible to write a PS interpreter for , say, the IBM PC; purchase the REAL fonts from Adobe; get a cheap non-postscript laser printer and *poof* have a postscript capable printer? It seems to me, that if the interpreter was sold cheaply, it would bring postscript capability to the masses. Where are the faults in my logic? BTW - I realize that PS takes up lots of RAM but there are 2Mb expansion boards for the IBM and PC's such as the Amiga have no trouble with RAM expansion. Peter Philip
jdm@gssc.UUCP (John D. Miller) (10/07/87)
sure, you could write your own page-description language (ala PostScript) or
your own document-description language (ala nroff/troff, TeX, etc.). i think
that a document description PROTOCOL is appropriate. if you have ever tried
to interface PostScript to another graphics or text interface, you know how
frustrating it is to have to REASON with the stupid thing because it wants to
hide too much from you, the device driver writer. a language is not the right
interface here. how many times do you sit down at the terminal and write a
program that describes the page you want printed? this is the job of a user-
level app, not a device. device drivers are supposed to be much lower level
than that - i.e. ESCmumble mumble should be all i have to send across the
serial line to the device to get it to do what i want, NOT "newpath 0 0
moveto 0 0 1 0 45 arc closepath" which is what i would have to send to a
PostScript device, which would run it through it's Forth-like interpreter,
deal with numbers as FLOATING-POINT and run them through a 3x3 matrix to
finally draw the fricking dots. no doubt about it, PostScript printers are
SLOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW, especially for graphics.
Adobe fonts are nothing to write home about, either. examine the Adobe
Helvetica, comparing it to "real" Helvetica, and you can see that it is a very
crude approximation. the "o"s are squished, etc. blow these fonts way up
and see the flat spots on the arcs and poorly joined lines. this is not good
stuff.
on the other hand, Bitstream makes WONDERFUL software fonts. i have been to
their facility in Cambridge and took their little course on their patented
"smart" font technology and it is truly impressive. a REAL artificial
intelligence application!! they also have over 1000 software font faces and
are working their way up to over 2500. (disclaimer - i have no ties to
Bitstream).
anyway, the point of this whole posting is to strongly encourage you to design
a new document-description protocol that combines the best of all the existing
partial solutions. ideally, the protocol will have various levels - device,
device-driver, language binding, user-interface, etc. make your font model
flexible enough to accomodate most any font machinery, but i truly hope that
you encourage Bitstream fonts. :-)
let me know how it turns out!!
-- jdm
--
John D. Miller
Graphic Software Systems (GSS), 9590 S.W. Gemini Dr., Beaverton, OR, 97005
...!{tektronix!verdix}!sequent!gssc!jdm (503) 641-2200richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/08/87)
In article <1304@thebes.swatsun.UUCP> Peter Greenberg writes: > >All this is speculative and does not consider any ethical stuff which you To quote my father in law (the lawyer): "It doesnt have to be ethical. Just legal" >Peter Greenberg -- Richard J. Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition..."
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/08/87)
In article <976@titan.camcon.uucp> mrh@camcon.uucp (Mark Hughes) writes: >Phoenix, authors of a cloned BIOS for *the* PC, have started marketing >a clone of PostScript. Hopefully this will result in some cheaper laser >printers emerging before long. I read somewhere that in addition to >the large initial licence fee, manufacturers have to pay Adobe a royalty >of several hundred dollars per printer. My only fear here would be if there was a vast difference (vaster (?) than it is now) between what the Phoenix PS puts on paper and what rfPostScript puts down on, say, a phototypesetter. Especially for small characters. > >Mark Hughes -- Richard J. Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition..."
hvt@tnosel.UUCP (henq) (10/13/87)
In article 'Re: PostScript standard?' John D. Miller writes: > how many times do you sit down at the terminal and write a > program that describes the page you want printed? if you program on a Mac, *all* you do is making programs that describe pages to be printed (WYISWYG, remember ?) and..who wants hardware specific, manufacturer specific, resolution dependant programs these days ? -henk Have a nice day
steele@unc.cs.unc.edu (Oliver Steele) (10/15/87)
hvt@tnosel.UUCP (henq) writes: >In article 'Re: PostScript standard?' John D. Miller writes: >> how many times do you sit down at the terminal and write a >> program that describes the page you want printed? > >if you program on a Mac, *all* you do is making programs >that describe pages to be printed (WYISWYG, remember ?) >and..who wants hardware specific, manufacturer specific, >resolution dependant programs these days ? Curious example. In the Mac world, it's the PostScript-specific prgrams that *are* hardware specific, or at least relatively so. Most applications use QuickDraw, which is the true DeVice Independent (DVI) Macintosh Page Description Language (PDL): it works on any screen cards you put into the Mac, and is mapped by the printer driver into the PDL supported by the chosen printer (bit streams for dot matrices and General Computer's laserwriter, PS for other laserwriters, and other formats for plotters and other printers). If your application describes a page in PS, it can only use this description for output to PS printers; if it describes a page in QuickDraw, it can use this description for screen drawing, non-PS printers, *and* PS printers. The moral of this is that if you have a sufficiently powerful PDL built into the computer, and DVI printing in the OS, it doesn't matter what PDL your printers use as long as your printers can print at a high enough resolution to render your page the way you described it. Fonts are a different story, but fonts can be (*can be*, but often aren't) abstracted from the PDL itself. A standard PDL among printers is a boon for the IBM family because (1) IBM doesn't have a sufficiently powerful PDL to fill the bill, and (2) IBM doesn't have a DVI print driver in the OS. Actually, QuickDraw on the Macs doesn't quite fill the bill, else Mac programs that *do* deal specifically with PostScript wouldn't be necessary (nor would certain kludgy things that have to do with the different interpretation of certain picture opcodes by the screen driver and the printer driver). The deficiencies include limitations on rotated text and the types and ranges of shading, among other things. So the moral still holds, but the example is weak (still, not bad for four-year-old architecture. Anything newer ought to be better, but this doesn't seem to hold). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oliver Steele ...!{decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!unc!steele steele%unc@mcnc.org "'As it were' means 'I think that I sound very erudite.' 'Per se' is Latin for 'as it were.' As it were."
lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) (10/15/87)
hvt@tnosel.UUCP (henq) writes: >In article 'Re: PostScript standard?' John D. Miller writes: > >> how many times do you sit down at the terminal and write a >> program that describes the page you want printed? > >if you program on a Mac, *all* you do is making programs >that describe pages to be printed (WYISWYG, remember ?) > ... Well, I suppose writing the program directly is what was meant. Then the answer is: rarely. But somewhat more often the need to examine or edit such a program arises. For instance when implementing a postscript driver. Or making some small change in the appearance of the output, or incorporating a figure, when the high-level software doesn't do quite the right thing for you. Then it's nice to have an editable interpretable program available.
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (10/20/87)
In article <1628@unc.cs.unc.edu> steele@unc.UUCP (Oliver Steele) writes: } Most applications use QuickDraw, which is the true DeVice Independent (DVI) } Macintosh Page Description Language (PDL) } The moral of this is that if you have a sufficiently powerful PDL built } into the computer, and DVI printing in the OS, it doesn't matter what PDL } your printers use as long as your printers can print at a high enough } resolution to render your page the way you described it. } Actually, QuickDraw on the Macs doesn't quite fill the bill, else Mac } programs that *do* deal specifically with PostScript wouldn't be necessary } (nor would certain kludgy things that have to do with the different } interpretation of certain picture opcodes by the screen driver and the } printer driver). The deficiencies include limitations on rotated text and } the types and ranges of shading, among other things. Well said, and truly. It should be further noted that Apple are fully aware of the various ramifications of this, and have seriously charged Macintosh software developers that embedding direct PostScript support in their programs is a dangerous practice. The consequences of doing so became evident with the introduction of what was essentially a QuickDraw laser printer, which cannot be used to print output containing embedded PostScript. Apple have announced a committment to extend QuicDraw to redress any inadequacies in its capabilities as a PDL. Of course, it is not clear how long it will take to provide the necessary features, nor how welcome the extensions will actually be (given that QuickDraw is solidly ROM at present). Far more important will be extending the capabilities of PDLs to reflect the wide range of new demands that the rapidly expanding horde of personal computer users with full page printers is likely to generate. Enter, stage centre, the (computer-) age-old problem of standard versus increased functionality.... Robert_S -- Robert Stanley Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 Voice: (613) 738-1440 (Research: there are 2!) 3755 Riverside Drive FAX: (613) 738-0002 Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts CANADA K1G 3Z4