gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (02/21/90)
I am hesitant to write a document using anything other than Adobe's
set of ~ 33 basic fonts. This is because, if I use some sort of
exotic font, there's no guarantee I'll be able to use it in a new
environment that I might move to.
Am I worrying too much? Or is this a valid concern? I don't want to
shell out $$$ every time I change printers, in order to get a new copy
of the printer-resident font. If my installation has a rare font on
its printers, and I have the workstation bitmaps, then there's no a
priori reason to buy a downloadable version, and besides, downloading
is *slow*.
Now if adobe would offer a "plus plus" package of perhaps ~ 65 fonts,
I would feel safer in using these exotic fonts. In the near future, a
single ROM should be able to hold at least 65 fonts, including hints.
Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesamanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (02/22/90)
This touches on an interesting point. Currently, if you want to send a PostScript document to someone else, you pretty much have to either stick to Times, Helvetica, Courier, & Symbol or make sure they have the fonts you use, since it violates Adobe's font license to include the fonts themselves into the document. This is kind of annoying. For example, our corporate logo includes the word "InterCon" in tightly tracked Univers 75 Oblique. As I read Adobe's font license, I can't distribute an electronic document that contains our logo (and thus that font), even if I hack the font so that the only letters in it are the ones in the word "InterCon" (which, in fact, I have done--it brings the EPSF file down to about 5K from 37.5K). From a conventional typsetting perspective, Adobe's terms make plenty of sense, but as documents start being distributed more and more in electronic form, they start getting in the way of a lot of uses for PostScript. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (02/22/90)
In article <99500020@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > I am hesitant to write a document using anything other than Adobe's > set of ~ 33 basic fonts. This is because, if I use some sort of > exotic font, there's no guarantee I'll be able to use it in a new > environment that I might move to. > > Am I worrying too much? Or is this a valid concern? I don't want to Adobe fonts are truly portable, as they are POSTSCRIPT programs. Other type 3 fonts are also portable, as long as you stick to a PS enviornment you won't have any problem. In addition some of the "exotic" fonts are industry standard..... Cheers Woody
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (02/24/90)
In article <1990Feb21.174332.17973@intercon.com>, amanda@mermaid (Amanda Walker) writes: >As I read Adobe's font license, I can't distribute an electronic document that >contains our logo (and thus that font), even if I hack the font so that the >only letters in it are the ones in the word "InterCon" (which, in fact, I have >done--it brings the EPSF file down to about 5K from 37.5K). One possibility would be to convert the font into an editable outline that could then be further modified in something like Illustrator. I know there's at least one package that does this on the Mac; whether it works with Adobe's Type 1 fonts is another question. Of course, since Adobe is going to publish the specs for them any day now, I assume it will work with them in the future if it doesn't already. Then your logo would just be an EPS image -- no worries about distributing copyrighted fonts. Of course, this doesn't help at all if your whole document is formatted with an "uncommon" font. >From a conventional typsetting perspective, Adobe's terms make plenty of >sense, but as documents start being distributed more and more in electronic >form, they start getting in the way of a lot of uses for PostScript. Agreed. Maybe if Adobe's PS interpreters did a better job of font substitution (after all, Courier is almost always the wrong choice) it would be less of a problem -- documents would be at least readable, if not perfect. But it's a thorny issue, and one that clearly prevents PostScript from being the document interchange format that Adobe seems to want it to be. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman
kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (02/24/90)
In article <18015@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >In article <99500020@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> >> I am hesitant to write a document using anything other than Adobe's >> set of ~ 33 basic fonts. This is because, if I use some sort of >> exotic font, there's no guarantee I'll be able to use it in a new >> environment that I might move to. >> >> Am I worrying too much? Or is this a valid concern? I don't want to > >Adobe fonts are truly portable, as they are POSTSCRIPT programs. >Other type 3 fonts are also portable, as long as you stick to a PS >enviornment you won't have any problem. In addition some of the >"exotic" fonts are industry standard..... This only applies if you have control over the target environment. It does NOT apply if the target environment has a different set of available fonts. You cannot legally include most fonts with your documents, after all, so it is natural to be concerned about such things. In fact, I have enough trouble keeping my two Macs in sync about font things since they (a) are not on a network, so they have their own system files, and (b) the active set of fonts changes a lot, including all the stuff that happens around font number clashes. I don't quite know what to do that would be workable here. If everything were stable, I would sooner or later get versions of everything that was "harmonized". Just another thing that takes more attention than I have time to give... -- Kevin O'Gorman ( kevin@kosman.UUCP, kevin%kosman.uucp@nrc.com ) voice: 805-984-8042 Vital Computer Systems, 5115 Beachcomber, Oxnard, CA 93035 Non-Disclaimer: my boss is me, and he stands behind everything I say.
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) (02/27/90)
In article <1134@kosman.UUCP> kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) writes: >This only applies if you have control over the target environment. It >does NOT apply if the target environment has a different set of available >fonts. > >You cannot legally include most fonts with your documents, after all, >so it is natural to be concerned about such things. > I am starting to get confused (not for the first time but certainly this is the most vocal time). Let's say I use Lotus Manuscript to write a book. I then get a publishing house to agree to publish this work. What happens if there is a reason for using a very specific font for very specific things in the book. A font that the publishing house does not have and can't (won't, etc) buy because this is the only time they would ever use it. Does all this mean that I can't send a PS fiel to the publisher for printing by them because it would have the font included as part of the PS file that I generated through Lotus Manuscript?? Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
batcheldern@hannah.enet.dec.com (Ned Batchelder) (03/01/90)
> Let's say I use Lotus Manuscript to > write a book. I then get a publishing house to agree to publish this > work. What happens if there is a reason for using a very specific font > for very specific things in the book. A font that the publishing house > does not have and can't (won't, etc) buy because this is the only time > they would ever use it. Does all this mean that I can't send a PS fiel > to the publisher for printing by them because it would have the font > included as part of the PS file that I generated through Lotus > Manuscript?? Let's put it this way: if you for some reason wanted to send them not the PS file, but the Manuscript file, and they didn't have Manuscript, and wouldn't buy it because they were only going to use it this once to print your document, could you legally give them a copy to use? Of course not. People are used to the idea that software is licensed to a particular environment, and accept the limitations that implies. Fonts are no different. Read your license agreement. As to what to do about the problem of wanting to use whizzy fonts, but not knowing if people will be able to print the document: I don't know. It's a toughie. Ned Batchelder, Digital Equipment Corp., BatchelderN@Hannah.enet.DEC.com
smithda@cpsvax.cps.msu.edu (J. Daniel Smith) (03/01/90)
In article <8805@shlump.nac.dec.com> batcheldern@hannah.enet.dec.com writes: > >> they would ever use it. Does all this mean that I can't send a PS fiel >> to the publisher for printing by them because it would have the font >> included as part of the PS file that I generated through Lotus >> Manuscript?? > >Let's put it this way: if you for some reason wanted to send them not >the PS file, but the Manuscript file, and they didn't have Manuscript, >and wouldn't buy it because they were only going to use it this once to >print your document, could you legally give them a copy to use? Of course not. I don't see this as being quite the same. Manuscript is an entire software package; this is a single file generated by someone using a legal copy of that package. The other software package in the above system is the PostScript interpreter---the one on the typesetter in this case. Both of these have been paid for and are being used in a legal fashion. The PS file is just a way of moving information from one software package to another software package; Manuscript generate PostScript files and the typesetter turns PostScript files into typeset pages. Now I don't profess to know all the legal ins-and-outs of this issue, but it doesn't seem right that one should not be able to do what is described here. Now I could see a problem if the file was given to the publisher for some other use since that would entail also giving them the font. This isn't the case here: the file is being given to the publisher for the sole purpose of printing it on a high-resolution PostScript device. The file will not be retained by the publisher other than to print it. What would the case be if there was some way to send this file directly to the publisher's typesetter (i.e. not take a disk across the street)? What if this could be done trasnparently from the program? I wouldn't have any moral problems with any of this. The publisher is not retaining for the file (or font), and the person that paid for the special font is the one using it. Now of course this makes it possible for the publisher to get fonts in an illegal fashion, but that's getting off track a bit. Just my thoughts... Dan ========================================================================= J. Daniel Smith Internet: smithda@cpsvax.cps.msu.edu Michigan State University BITNET: smithdan@msuegr East Lansing, Michigan Usenet: uunet!frith!smithda There was things which he strechted, but mainly he told the truth. - Mark Twain, Huckleberry Finn =========================================================================
delong@frith.egr.msu.edu (03/01/90)
What if you transferred "ownership" of the font to the publisher for the short period of time needed for them to print it? The copyright that protects books doesn't keep you from selling a novel you have already read to someone for $1. It also doesn't prevent them from selling it back to you for $1. What would be the difference as long as you didn't use the font when it wasn't in your possesion? Keith delong@frith.egr.msu.edu
arh@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Eric B) (03/02/90)
In article <6684@cps3xx.UUCP> delong@frith.egr.msu.edu writes: >What if you transferred "ownership" of the font to the publisher >for the short period of time needed for them to print it? >The copyright that protects books doesn't keep you from selling >a novel you have already read to someone for $1. It also doesn't >prevent them from selling it back to you for $1. >Keith >delong@frith.egr.msu.edu Yes, you could sell the font to the publisher for $1. They could read it, then sell it back. That is the same as the example you have given. This would be fine if the publisher didn't sell the manuscript for a profit. But that would be like asking a lawyer not to make money. Why don't you ask a lawer about the legalities of publishing a {paper, article, book, journal} with licensed fonts? The best place to do that is in misc.legal. Please direct all followups about this topic there. STOP discussing it here! Eric G. Bolinger 8-) arh@sage.cc.purdue.edu I'd like to hear more about how PostScript's stack can be used to it's full potential. There, see, I didn't waste an article.
philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (03/02/90)
In article <3752@sage.cc.purdue.edu>, arh@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Eric B) writes: > Why don't you ask a lawer about the legalities of publishing a {paper, > article, book, journal} with licensed fonts? The best place to do that > is in misc.legal. Please direct all followups about this topic there. Let's forget legalities and talk about what's reasonable. If a PostScript file contains a font, which is clearly ONLY meant to be used for printing that file, I don't see why this should be seen as violating someone's copyright, since the font was bought for that purpose. The solution would appear to be to allow embedding the font in a PS file, in the same spirit as (e.g.) some compiler licence agreements allow you to embed libraries in code you distribute, as long as you don't sell the libraries themselves. Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
amy@lloyd.camex.uucp (Amy Lindsay) (03/03/90)
>In article <1134@kosman.UUCP> kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) writes: >>You cannot legally include most fonts with your documents, after all, >>so it is natural to be concerned about such things. Another Kevin (kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker)) then asks about what to do if you use a very specific font, but your publishing house won't buy it because they won't use it again. (Aside: there is a difference between a "publishing house" and a "type house." A "type house" is someone who typesets your manuscript. After that, you're responsible for printing, distribution, marketing, etc. Since I am most familiar with those people, that's who I'm going to talk about.) In "The Industry" (my, don't I sound hoity-toity?) if you design a book, and use a font which your type house doesn't have, you have only a few options 1. Paste-up. (REAL paste-up, with boards and x-acto(tm) knives.) 2. Buy the font FOR the type house. (depends on your budget, but I've been a part of projects which did this.) 3. Or you can "pirate" copy of the font. (which NOBODY in this group would DREAM of doing because it is such a ROTTEN EVIL NASTY AWFUL thing, aside from being illegal.) So, if you decide on option 1, you will have to flag your document so they know where to do the paste-up, and if you use option 2, you won't. And if you opt for 3, all of us who get angry about such things will come to your house and break your legs. You talk about typesetters who WILL not spring for the typeface you want, which is certainly not out of the ordinary, but usually can be worked around if you offer to buy them the font (after all, your life will end if you do not use this typeface, right?) If you have chosen a font which does not have an equivalent counterpart in their typesetting environment, usually #1 is the only way to go. And, of course, there's the option of going to another type house, (which, I admit, is not always an option with a publisher.) It doesn't matter to a PRINTER (i.e. the company printing your book) whether the pages are "set in place" or are pasted up. I can talk about that particular aspect, but is not really related to this group. --amy "Have straight-edge, will travel." A.G.Lindsay Typography & Design Department husc6!lloyd!amy Camex, Inc. ~ Boston, MA amy%lloyd@husc6.harvard.edu Camex pays me to work with letters, not words. "Up...secret of flight (see also "down," secret of crash.)"