feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) (04/17/89)
In article <8473@polya.Stanford.EDU> rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) writes: > >No, no, no. Use the DPS in the cube to handle the PostScript, and >just send bitmaps to the printer. Especially with the new DJ+, >this should work *very* well. > >> What would make sense would be to port the Ghostscript Postscript >> to HP PCL converter for the NeXT machine. Ghostscript builds the > >Why, with DSP in the cube? > >-tom Exporting PostScript generated on the NeXT to other NeXTs (that's how remote printing is done), non-NeXTs, and non-NeXT printers is kosher, but doing the same with the bitmaps generated by DPS on the NeXT is not. Here is an excerpt from the ``NeXT Software License Agreement (Preliminary Software Releases)'' contained in the ``Read this first!'' booklet that comes with the NeXT: ... You agree not to make use of the NeXT Preliminary Software, directly or indirectly, to print bitmap images generated by the NeXT Preliminary Software, or to generate fonts or typefaces, other than on a single NeXT Computer in conjunction with a single NeXT computer. ... And, of course, Mr. Phelps, should you or any of your IM staff break the seal on a Software Release 0.8 optical disk, that will constitute acceptance of the accompanying license agreement. NeXT (printers), Adobe (PostScript), and Linotype AG (fonts) are protecting themselves. Is the way that they are going about it reasonable? You decide. So, for a non-NeXT, non-PostScript printer, you will need Postscript to printer software (e.g., Ghostscript). Mark
izumi@violet.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) (04/18/89)
In article <4707@umd5.umd.edu> feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) writes: >Exporting PostScript generated on the NeXT to other NeXTs (that's how remote >printing is done), non-NeXTs, and non-NeXT printers is kosher, but doing the >same with the bitmaps generated by DPS on the NeXT is not. > >Here is an excerpt from the ``NeXT Software License Agreement (Preliminary >Software Releases)'' contained in the ``Read this first!'' booklet that >comes with the NeXT: > ... > You agree not to make use of the NeXT Preliminary Software, directly > or indirectly, to print bitmap images generated by the NeXT > Preliminary Software, or to generate fonts or typefaces, other than > on a single NeXT Computer in conjunction with a single NeXT computer. I don't see anything in this excerpt which prevents us from transmitting bitmaps generated by DSP to elsewhere for viewing or printing. Are you sure of your interpretation? I hope you don't see anything wrong with photocopying NeXT generated page in thousands, and distributing them to other people. How is that differerent from transmitting bitmaps to the same people? Izumi Ohzawa izumi@violet.berkeley.edu
feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) (04/18/89)
In article <23241@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> izumi@violet.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >In article <4707@umd5.umd.edu> feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) writes: >>Exporting PostScript generated on the NeXT to other NeXTs (that's how remote >>printing is done), non-NeXTs, and non-NeXT printers is kosher, but doing the >>same with the bitmaps generated by DPS on the NeXT is not. >> >>Here is an excerpt from the ``NeXT Software License Agreement (Preliminary >>Software Releases)'' contained in the ``Read this first!'' booklet that >>comes with the NeXT: >> ... >> You agree not to make use of the NeXT Preliminary Software, directly >> or indirectly, to print bitmap images generated by the NeXT >> Preliminary Software, or to generate fonts or typefaces, other than >> on a single NeXT Computer in conjunction with a single NeXT computer. > >I don't see anything in this excerpt which prevents us from >transmitting bitmaps generated by DSP to elsewhere for viewing or >printing. Are you sure of your interpretation? The above excerpt is preceded in the license agreement by: The NeXT Preliminary Software is intended to be used to generate screen displays with resolutions of 92 dots per inch on the NeXT Computer and to print images with print resolution up to 400 dots per inch on the NeXT printer. ... That complete excerpt (an oxymoron?), combined with the fact that the NeXT people at the support class that I attended explicitly stated that the DPS-produced bitmaps are off-limits makes me pretty sure of my interpretation. And as long as there is any question, I am going to stick with my interpretation to make sure that I don't break the license agreement. Make my day -- PROVE me wrong. >I hope you don't see anything wrong with photocopying NeXT generated >page in thousands, and distributing them to other people. That (the wording) wasn't necessary. If anyone is not satisfied with my interpretation, ask your legal staff, or, better yet, ask the NeXT legal staff. A NeXT can interpret PostScript and display it on the screen or on a printer. It can also shove PostScript to other computers and printers. Once something has been printed or displayed, that output is subject to the copyright and license agreements of the program that produced it. If neither that program's license nor copyright laws forbid it, you can make as many copies of that output as you like -- send me a few copies if it is interesting. While it is in the bitmap form generated by DPS, it is protected by the license agreement. >How is that differerent from transmitting bitmaps to the same people? The difference is in the license agreement. When you break the seal on 0.8 software, you are agreeing to abide by the license agreement, even if some of the clauses appear arbitrary or nonsensical. Besides, in most cases, the original, unencumbered PostScript is smaller than the resulting bitmap and is more easily transported. >Izumi Ohzawa >izumi@violet.berkeley.edu Mark
izumi@violet.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) (04/19/89)
In article <4719@umd5.umd.edu> feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) writes: >In article <23241@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> izumi@violet.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >>> >>>Here is an excerpt from the ``NeXT Software License Agreement (Preliminary >>>Software Releases)'' contained in the ``Read this first!'' booklet that >>>comes with the NeXT: >>> ... >>> You agree not to make use of the NeXT Preliminary Software, directly >>> or indirectly, to print bitmap images generated by the NeXT >>> Preliminary Software, or to generate fonts or typefaces, other than >>> on a single NeXT Computer in conjunction with a single NeXT computer. >The above excerpt is preceded in the license agreement by: > The NeXT Preliminary Software is intended to be used to generate > screen displays with resolutions of 92 dots per inch on the NeXT > Computer and to print images with print resolution up to 400 dots > per inch on the NeXT printer. > >That complete excerpt (an oxymoron?), combined with the fact that the NeXT >people at the support class that I attended explicitly stated that the >DPS-produced bitmaps are off-limits makes me pretty sure of my >interpretation. Is it just me? I still don't understand how the above prohibits caputuring DPS generated bitmaps and using them in any way we wish. So, NeXT *intended* their software to be used that way. Isn't finding *UNintended* use called innovation? Besides, although not relevent to NeXT (yet), there is a program called "Lasertalk" for Mac which, as I understand it, sucks in bitmaps from the PostScript printer to allow interactive use of PostScript and direct viewing of current images in the printer frame buffer. How could they do it, but not us? Unless Adobe is suing Emereld City Software which sells this program, NeXT must be the one that is trying to prevent free use of bitmaps. Restricting bitmaps is akin to placing similar restrictions to compiler generated binaries which are generally unrestricted in their distribution. How could the restriction on bitmaps, other than in the context of recommended programming practice, would be in any interest of NeXT? I sincerely hope that "off-limit"-ness of bitmaps is in the context of RECOMMENDED programming practices under NeXTStep, which becomes REQUIRED programming practice for NeXT Registered Developers. This is because they sign an developer agreement in which the developer agrees to make the program comform to NeXT program interface specifications. But, that should not legally bind end users or NON-registered programmers. Would someone else who attended the support class care to confirm or deny what Mark says? > >>I hope you don't see anything wrong with photocopying NeXT generated >>page in thousands, and distributing them to other people. >That (the wording) wasn't necessary. If anyone is not satisfied with my I apologize for that. >Once something has been printed or displayed, that output is subject to the >copyright and license agreements of the program that produced it. If > >Besides, in most cases, the original, unencumbered PostScript is smaller >than the resulting bitmap and is more easily transported. I don't want to spend too much time interpreting the license agreement, but I don't like what I see above. And If the above interpretation is indeed what NeXT is trying to subject us to, then I would like that changed. Could anyone from NeXT comment on this? I agree that the original PostScript is probably more compact and suitable for transmission. But I imagine a situation where I want to take the bitmap created by DPS, say by screen cut-and-paste, into FAX program, merge it with text and send it out via modem. Is this going to be illegal? Don't bitmaps belong to US rather than to NeXT or Adobe, regardless of whether it's comitted to paper or in computer memory? At least, that part of bitmap created inside a window (not including icons, buttons, and look-and-feel items)? Don't we own bitmaps we create with NeXTPaint program, or it it NeXT's or Adobe's property ? I am in no hurry to break any agreement (to which I will agree in a few weeks, hopefully), but I certainly don't want my rights to my bitmaps taken away by passing them through DPS image operator. Izumi Ohzawa izumi@violet.berkeley.edu
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/20/89)
As I mentioned previously, it is very unlikely that a shrinkwrap agreemnent can be made legally enforcable. There is legal precedent of courts having nullified shrinkwrap agreements, but as far as I know, there is no precent of a shrinkwrap agreeement being upheld by a court. It is extremely unlikely that Next could sucessfully claim any sort of copyright on rendered output, even if it contains recognizable glyphs. To date, courts have viewed such cases the same way that photographs in books have been treated. All one need do is manipulate the image slightly, and one can claim orignality .. for example rearrage positioning of glyphs slightly. That the image was rendered by a program is irrelevent. The court would likely view computer rendering the same way that they would if Grumbach tried to claim copyright to any painting painted using one of their brushes. That the image contiains recognizable glyphs is also irrelevent, as they can not be copyrighted. The exception would be use of a registerd tradmark. The reason that Adobe encrpyts the font bitmaps in postscript is that the fonts can not be copyrighted. Note that the Apple versus Digital Research claim was settled out of court, so there is no legal precedent set regarding the imfamous trashcan icon. Digital Research could likely have won the case, but they lacked the money to be able to outlast Apple's legion of lawyers in protracted rounds of legal discovery. I suppose the same could prove to be true of users vs. Next re: the shrinkwrap; it is unlikely that any one user could outlast Next legal muscle, even if the user is right and Next is wrong. As usual, it is he or she that has the most bucks that wins. Bill