kevina@apple.com (This space for rent) (02/16/90)
Wood-man--
In article <17948@rpp386.cactus.org>, you ventured a suggestion as to how
Lasertalk uploads bitmaps from a PostScript printer to the Mac, saying
that a downloaded operator called flushbands caused magic to happen over
AppleTalk.
Close, but no guitar.
Lasertalk does indeed download a couple operators to support preview mode,
but I don't think flushbands is the one you're looking for. My guess is
that flushbands is provided to make sure that all pending *bands* in the
display list get *flushed* to the frame buffer, before the buffer gets
uploaded to the Mac. I recall (but can't seem to find) a timing fragment
by Glenn Reid using the image operator that acheives the same effect.
Look closer, and you'll find the right operator to do what you want.
Capturing the AppleTalk transactions sounds like a lot of fun, but the
"About Lasertalk..." dialog box mentions that the preview images provided
"may not be used as the basis of a commercial product." Methinks that
Adobe made quite sure to have that included when they provided Emerald
City with the special operators, and that any attempt to turn your
LaserWriter into a font foundry, as was suggested, would be quickly
followed by suits from a couple irate companies.
Happy PostScript hacking, but respect the legal and moral rights of the
folks who undoubtedly plunked down some money in order that their product
would have a competitve edge. Who knows? Maybe for the right licensing
fee, Adobe will provide you with a disassembleROMtosource operator to help
you with your consulting business!
(Substandard disclaimer: These are my opinions, not necessarily Apple's,
etc.)
--Kevin Andresen [kevina@apple.com]
"MB rules!"kent@wsl.dec.com (Christopher A. Kent) (02/16/90)
The folks at Emerald City have licensed the right to make use of some undocumented, unsupported hooks in the LaserWriter PostScript interpreter. That's how they get their access to the bitmaps; by paying money for the right to use the technology in a way other than putting bits on paper, which is what the normal LaserWriter paid for, and ALL that he or she paid for. Chris Kent Western Software Laboratory Digital Equipment Corporation kent@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!kent (415) 853-6639
philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (02/17/90)
In article <2783@bacchus.dec.com>, kent@wsl.dec.com (Christopher A. Kent) writes: > The folks at Emerald City have licensed the right to make use of some > undocumented, unsupported hooks in the LaserWriter PostScript > interpreter. That's how they get their access to the bitmaps; by paying > money for the right to use the technology in a way other than putting > bits on paper, which is what the normal LaserWriter paid for, and ALL > that he or she paid for. > > Chris Kent Western Software Laboratory Digital Equipment Corporation > kent@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!kent (415) 853-6639 Not strictly true. What you get for you money (assuming you've bought a traditional PS printer) is a general-purpose computer with an embedded operating system and language interpreter, that happens to be specialized to controlling a printing engine. If I choose to use it to do number crunching (assuming I have a lot of spare time), that's up to me. The one thing it appears I have NOT bought is the right to reuse fonts built into the PS interpreter in other ways. Appears? I can't say I recall seeing a copyright notice (?) supplied with any PS printer making this EXPLICIT. So Adobe has encrypted the fonts in the printer. So what? They now provide software to render the same fonts as bit maps on other devices, such as Macintosh screens (Adobe Type Manager). A Font Foundry? I'm not so sure about this. You could print out characters in a dozen sizes and scan them in if all you needed to implement a font was a bitmapped version. The point we are gettng to is this: people need to convert PS to bitmaps. A PS printer can already do this. It's not the fastest way of doing it, but it ought to be a reasonably simple hack to upload a bitmap from the printer (as LaserTalk does), compared with writing a whole PS interpreter. So what is the REAL reason Adobe doesn't want us to do this? Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
nrh@buzz.bellcore.com (Nathaniel Howard) (02/17/90)
In article <1990Feb16.190232.16224@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >The one thing it appears I have NOT bought is the right to reuse >fonts built into the PS interpreter in other ways. Appears? I can't say >I recall seeing a copyright notice (?) supplied with any PS printer >making this EXPLICIT. Without claiming to be authoritative on other matters, here's what you get when you talk to a vanilla LaserWriter: PostScript(tm) Version 23.0 Copyright (c) 1984 Adobe Systems Incorporated. PS> And the more recent LaserWriter IINTX: PostScript(r) Version 47.0 Copyright (c) 1984, '85, '86, '87 Adobe Systems Inc. Copyright (c) 1981 Linotype All Rights Reserved. PS> So now you know the Awful Truth. I don't know if this is explicit enough to satisfy you, or the courts, and I don't much care -- just thought I'd clear up the matter of fact.
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (02/19/90)
In article <1990Feb16.190232.16224@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes: > In article <2783@bacchus.dec.com>, kent@wsl.dec.com (Christopher A. > Kent) writes: > > The folks at Emerald City have licensed the right to make use of some > > undocumented, unsupported hooks in the LaserWriter PostScript > > Not strictly true. What you get for you money (assuming you've bought a > traditional PS printer) is a general-purpose computer with an embedded > operating system and language interpreter, that happens to be > specialized to controlling a printing engine. If I choose to use it to > do number crunching (assuming I have a lot of spare time), that's up to Yup, yea, verily indeed. It's nice to know that someone else can see forest in spite of the trees. p > fonts built into the PS interpreter in other ways. Appears? I can't say > I recall seeing a copyright notice (?) supplied with any PS printer The outline shape can't be copyrighted anyway, as we have all seen in the prior net postings. > So what? They now provide software to render the same fonts as bit maps > on other devices, such as Macintosh screens (Adobe Type Manager). > > A Font Foundry? I'm not so sure about this. You could print out > characters in a dozen sizes and scan them in if all you needed to > implement a font was a bitmapped version. and the bit map is the shape, and this cannot be copyrighted. In addition if you have a hard-disk version, you can read the font bitmaps off the hard disk anyway. > The point we are gettng to is this: people need to convert PS to > bitmaps. A PS printer can already do this. It's not the fastest way of > doing it, but it ought to be a reasonably simple hack to upload a bitmap > from the printer (as LaserTalk does), compared with writing a whole PS > interpreter. So what is the REAL reason Adobe doesn't want us to do this? Who knows, perhaps a desire to control the market, to call the shots, to make money. But probably because it would violate device independance, the holy grail of printerdom. Not all printers can do it, but the majority can, and people need that ability. c t Cheers Woody
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (02/19/90)
In article <20115@bellcore.bellcore.com>, nrh@buzz.bellcore.com (Nathaniel Howard) writes: > In article <1990Feb16.190232.16224@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: > >The one thing it appears I have NOT bought is the right to reuse > >fonts built into the PS interpreter in other ways. Appears? I can't say > >I recall seeing a copyright notice (?) supplied with any PS printer > >making this EXPLICIT. > > PostScript(tm) Version 23.0 > Copyright (c) 1984 Adobe Systems Incorporated. > PostScript(r) Version 47.0 > Copyright (c) 1984, '85, '86, '87 Adobe Systems Inc. > Copyright (c) 1981 Linotype All Rights Reserved. The INTERPRETER is copyrighted, but not the BITMAPS...... so now you know the rest of the story.... Cheers Woody