On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 08:08:39AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 03:57:15AM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> > Yes. Can TOG be regarded as the legal successor of the X Consortium?
> >
> > From
> >
> >http://www.faqs.org/faqs/x-faq/part1/section-16.html
> >
> > > Here
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 04:31:18AM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> When Sebastian presented pdftex at Adobe, they had been amazed that
> pdftex can do things they cannot do with their own tools (I suppose
> that Hans Hagen provided some files). This was years ago, but
> meanwhile Thanh provided m
Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
"David" == David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One does not need to mention PDFTeX in that context. But remind
> me: just what Adobe tool is replaced or endangered by PDFTeX? Do
> they have a general purpose typesetting program?
Do people use
Quoting Reinhard Kotucha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "David" == David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > One does not need to mention PDFTeX in that context. But remind
> > me: just what Adobe tool is replaced or endangered by PDFTeX? Do
> > they have a general purpose typesetting
Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
>> > "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who is willing to care
>> about the legal stuff. It is a great advantage that Thanh found
>> so
Ralf Stubner wrote:
> I digged into groups.google.com and found the original press release:
>
>
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.windows.x/browse_thread/thread/d351921a604a4039/a3e406813544b498
>
> Mountain View, Calif. (October 9, 1991) - Adobe Systems Incorporated today
> announced it has do
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
Current acrobat reader (well, it was at least a couple of years ago)
licencing forbids it to be distributed alongside other pdf generating
tools like pdftex, which is in big part why it was removed from non-free
back then.
The majority of commercial 3rd
> "David" == David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One does not need to mention PDFTeX in that context. But remind
> me: just what Adobe tool is replaced or endangered by PDFTeX? Do
> they have a general purpose typesetting program?
Do people use typesetting programs for typeset
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 09:01:53AM -0300, George White wrote:
> Quoting Reinhard Kotucha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > When Sebastian presented pdftex at Adobe, they had been amazed that
> > pdftex can do things they cannot do with their own tools (I suppose
> > that Hans Hagen provided some files).
Quoting Reinhard Kotucha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> When Sebastian presented pdftex at Adobe, they had been amazed that
> pdftex can do things they cannot do with their own tools (I suppose
> that Hans Hagen provided some files). This was years ago, but
> meanwhile Thanh provided many microtypograph
Reinhard Kotucha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "David" == David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Since they don't actively market them as far as I know, doing so
> > for something which is presumed to be in the open, anyway, might
> > be good PR.
>
> When Sebastian presented pd
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 03:57:15AM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> > "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. Can TOG be regarded as the legal successor of the X Consortium?
>
> From
>
>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/x-faq/part1/section-16.html
>
> > Here is the text of t
> "David" == David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps the easiest way out is to tell Adobe about the situation
> and ask them whether they'd consider relicensing those fonts
> _again_, this time to TUG or Dante, so as to clear up any issues.
Thanh already asked whether he is
> "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It may have been granted to: * the defunct MIT-based X Consortium,
> * directly to The Open Group, * X.Org as part of TOG, * X.Org
> Foundation.
Adobe says that it had been granted to the X Consortium.
> All the XOF people swea
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have a couple of people who deal with legal stuff (a lot of the time
> it's me sitting there going, 'y'know, "all rights reserved" and nothing
> else doesn't bear well for us distributing this'), but the problem in
> this case is the multitude of organ
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
>> > "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep
>> > within TOG: no-one still involved with X today re
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:26:14AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> > > "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep
> > > within TOG: no-one still i
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> > "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep
> > within TOG: no-one still involved with X today remembers this at
> > all.
>
> Maybe it is s
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
"Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep
> within TOG: no-one still involved with X today remembers this at
> all.
Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who
> "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. As I said earlier, it's probably tied up somewhere deep
> within TOG: no-one still involved with X today remembers this at
> all.
Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who is willing to care
about the legal stu
> "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only copyright on these fonts is: Copyright (c) 1989, 1991
> Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
> So, I'd say the answer to both of your questions is 'no'.
Daniel, I suppose that you didn't follow the discussio
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 02:24:03AM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> > "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The only copyright on these fonts is: Copyright (c) 1989, 1991
> > Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
>
> > So, I'd say the answer to both of your
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:31:13PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> > "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Do you know which person we could contact among the X.org
> >> people?
>
> > More context, please. Which fonts?
>
> The Utopia fonts from Adobe:
>
>
> "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Do you know which person we could contact among the X.org
>> people?
> More context, please. Which fonts?
The Utopia fonts from Adobe:
UTBI.pfa
UTB_.pfa
UTI_.pfa
UTRG.pfa
Usually they are in
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 02:50:32PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> > Do you know which person we could contact among the X.org people?
>
> More context, please. Which fonts?
In this special case, it's about the Utopia fonts
gsfonts-other-6.0/putbi.pfa
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 02:50:32PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> it just occurred to me that the X strike force might be a better place
> to ask this:
>
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dear debian-legal people,
> > Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It is quite odd that o
Hi,
it just occurred to me that the X strike force might be a better place
to ask this:
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear debian-legal people,
>
> Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It is quite odd that on the one hand Adobe says that all the rights are
>> with the X conso
27 matches
Mail list logo
