Slashdot Mirror

it's worse than that

A typeface dscriptor (a .ttf file) may be coprightable ( http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_13.htm [nwalsh.com] ) however that is easily resolved: ttf2afm $foo $bar && afm2ttf $bar $zag.

It's really funny that Microsoft is "letting" Linspire use Truetype, especially considering that:

    - Truetype is an APPLE innovation
    - Truetype was developed over 20 years ago, so any patents pertaining to such have long run out. Even if there were valid claims, APPLE would have to be the one to pursue the claims. Somehow I cannot see Apple doing this.
    - Fonts aren't copyrightable, based on numerous court precedents (note: a font is distinct from a typeface: a font is a typeface with a style, weight, size applied)

A typeface dscriptor (a .ttf file) may be coprightable ( http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_13.htm ) however that is easily resolved: ttf2afm $foo $bar && afm2ttf $bar $zag. Granted, that is a sleezy way to work around the issue, but the end result is likely not going to be an identical binary file. That would be a slightly interesting test case. Considering that the outline itself is not copyrightable but the binary representation of it is, I wonder if such a tactic is clear of infringement in a court of law? I'm sure the big business would win, but it's not outside feasibility for that to be considered not infringing since typefaces are an odd creative work in terms of copyright.

So, licensing truetype fonts to Linux distributions? Ha. I hope these linux vendors are not paying so much as a dime for these "agreements"

and potentially the font used to show the lyrics in the subtitles

This is a nitpick, but just FYI... you can copyright the file used to describe how the letters are drawn, but you can't copyright the look of the letters. Yeah, it doesn't make much sense from a protecting-artistic-work point of view, and people grumble about it often. (source)

I'll defend it. If it's my font, in that I hold the copyright, I can impose whatever conditions I like on you distributing documents made of it.

Unfortunately, not quite true. Checking the font FAQ, since you can only copyright a scalable font (not TypeFace designs or Bitmap fonts) I could print out my document, thus making it type face, and then I wouldn't have to worry about your license.

Also, since most document formats only tell the document viewer "use this font if it's installed, otherwise use the system default font," so long as I don't specifically embed your font into my document, distributing my document would fall outside your control.

What you could do is state that whenever I distribute a copy of your font (since that's what you hold copyright to) I have to stand on my head and whistle. This would also mean whenever I distribute my document in PDF format or some other format that embeds the font within the file I could have to stand on my head and whistle, but...

if I don't embed the font my file doesn't contain any information about your font other than your font name before the text I requested my document editor to format using your font. My document will load just fine without your font, it just won't look as purdy.

IANAL, but in-so-much as I understand the way of things, this is how it works.

Exactly. Look at the font faq regarding font face copyrightability.

You cannot copyright the typeface itself, so documents printed from a font have no link legally with the font used to create it. That's embedded as a specific exception in copyright law.

You can't embed the font file itself or substantial pieces of the data that created it in a document (such as a PDF) without permission from the owner, and it is there that GPL exceptions may be needed to prevent the entire document from becoming GPL.

If anybody tells you that a typeface on a document you have created is GPLd, then that has absolutely no legal weight. Can't copyright font typefaces, fullstop.

Now if we can just get the Xwindows folks on board! When I say "12-point type", I mean a height of 6 lines per inch, not 12 pixels (enormous on the cellphone; invisible on the workstation).

Suggest you read the following: "What is point size?" for the correct definition of point size. It's a workable measure, but only for print - it doesn't translate well to the screen and saying it's 6LPI doesn't seem correct either.

In fact, it's way more complex. The problem here is we're using a measurement for something it was not designed to be applied to. It works after a fashion, but there's gotta be a better way.

Pixels actually works pretty well on a screen, since it's an absolute reference for that screen. Your problem is the screen resolution - low on a cellphone, high on a workstation.

Another poster has answered this below..

Is this true? (Hopefully using the right term...I mean itemized lists with roman numerials, numbers, letters for each part)

If you mean "itemized" or "enumerated" lists then yes there is a limit it appears you can go 5 deep.

The following will give a "Too deeply nested" error. Due to the "sub sub sub sub sub sub item"

N.B. It it not very pretty due to having to get past the "comment compression filter"...

\documentclass{article} \begin{document} \begin{itemize} \item Item \begin{itemize} \item Sub item \begin{itemize} \item Sub sub item \begin{itemize} \item sub sub sub item \begin{itemize} \item sub sub sub sub item \begin{itemize} \item sub sub sub sub sub item \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \end{document}

As with many aspects of LaTeX however if you find it doesn't do something it probably means it's not prudent (from a structural perspective) to do it anyway. For example if you really need that level of deep reference you may well be better off with part,chapter,section, subsection, ... . . .,itemize etc... Ironically I tried posting this reply with some deep nesting, slashdot posts are limited to three levels deep! ;-) Of course if you wish to you can always override the builtins with your own "super list" or something.

Also, can ya'll post some good links to a newbie learning LaTex..and some good reference sites that have all the tags layed out with good explanations?

Sure, below are a list places I would reccomend starting, you havn't said if you use Windows, *nix or Mac so i've added both (sorry if you are a Mac man you'll have to Google yourself).

• Editing:
• • *nix If you are a *nix user I would reccomend the following editing combination.
  • XEmacs
  • AucTeX. A sophisticated editing mode for LaTeX
  • preview-latex. Places the rendered equations and images directly in the editor window making "equation tuning" and other tasks a snip.
• Windows
• • WinEdt. A very sophisticated text editor for Windows. Its forte is LaTeX. It is not free, but well worth the money.

• Learning resources:
• • Getting started
  • Good overview
  • A list of symbols
  • The not so short introduction to LaTeX2e
  • Tips and tricks
  • BibTeX help.

• Other random stuff
• • dvipdfm. For converting the output of LaTeX into PDF (highly recommended)
  • Prof. Knuth's home page(The author of TeX).
  • CTANThe Comprehensive TeX Archive Network. Here you will be able to download packages, utilities and tools that do not come by default in your LaTeX distribution.

-ed

Ottawa was Optima, Erie was Eras, Switzerland was Helvetica, etc...

Here's a handy-dandy lookup guide.

This sounds an awful lot like the Mozilla site navigation bar to me. This was removed right before 1.0 was released, which is why I'm still using a pre-1.0 version of Mozilla myself (well, that and the fact that Mozilla was already rock solid before 1.0).

Alas for her, the US Copyright Office does not agree. See the last paragraph on this page. The fact that this flies in the face of the law as it is written is, as with DeCSS, of no importance if you end up in court. Why does America even bother having written laws when the Patent Office, Copyright Office, and every half-arsed hick judge can just make up their own laws?

In the UK typefaces are copyrighted under section 54 of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 (section 54 is just about the most opaque section in the entire act).

TWW

That's correct. AFAICR, Apple had a similar issue when it first came out with the Macintosh back in 1984. Of course, the Mac was the first computer to accurately display fonts on screen (WYSIWYG) so it needed to be able to display fonts appropriately.

Adobe at the time had the rights to fonts like Times, Helvetica, and Courier.

Apple, since it didn't want to/couldn't license the proper fonts themselves, decided to come up with its own version of these fonts. Thus begat the infamous "city" fonts of Apple old: New York (substitute for Times), Geneva (substitute for Helvetica), and Monaco (substitute for Courier)

There was even an option in the print dialog box for a long time that would automatically substitute the "real" version of the font when printed (since the LaserWriters had Times/Helvetica/Courier pre-installed). This became a problem later on though when the TrueType/Type 1 wars occured. The fonts weren't identical, so the spacing when printed would be different than what was shown on screen.

And here's a general FAQ about typography: http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_28.htm

The U.S. Copyright Office holds that a bitmapped font is nothing more than a computerized representation of a typeface, and as such is not copyrightable...

Fonts you see in print are nearly always copyrighted due to the demanding nature of making a good, legible and proper typeface.

comp.fonts FAQ: Are fonts copyrightable?

Looks to me like truetype fonts (and similar formats that have program-like logic included) are copyrightable, but typefaces in general (including the font after rendering) are not.

Here's an interesting tidbit.
As it turns out, fonts cannot be copyrighted in the US. Only the truetype "programs" that generate them can. (See comp.fonts FAQ .)

Therefore, it would almost certainly be legal to write a program that takes copyrighted truetype "programs" as input, and produces equivalent programs (that is, they generate the same typeface) that are not copyrighted. It would also need to change the names to avoid trademark infringement. If I did this, and also changed the embedding bit, would that not put me in the clear of any possible DMCA claim?

...could benefit from this sort of trick. What say we all switch to nice, simple XML-based documents, i.e., DocBook, and drop MS Word's DOC like a hot rock?

It just astounds me how such obviously inflammatory bullsh*t gets released to the press. How freaking obvious can Microsoft be when courting the entertainment industry?

DocBook is your friend

DocBook is a lot to digest at one time, but it is well worth the effort. Personally I prefer DocBook XML and use Norm Walsh's XSLT stylesheets to transform the XML to anything I want... HTML, PDF, whatever.

Here are some resources for your reading pleasure.

• OASIS DocBook Site
• Norm Walsh's DocBook Site
• Get Going With DocBook - Mark Galassi
• SGML for Windows NT
• DocBook tools

DocBook is Open Source, freely available on all platforms of interest, can be used for simple documents to complex books, separates presentation from content, and is extensible. What more could you want from a document format?

There is an XML/SGML alternative to LaTeX. It is already used by LinuxDoc and it is called DocBook.

This XML/SGML solution will not give you power to specify exact inches/cm like LaTeX but the goal is to tag everything to use with stylesheets. With the use of MathML, one can get the formula writing powers of LaTeX.

Alot of work has been done by Norman Walsh and he has some nice stylesheets for making slides and even a website.

This is not for the person interested in flashy webpages, but for people interested in using the power of XML to document anything.

If you are working with writing technical documentation this is something that is worth looking into.

alfadir
--
"A witty quote proves nothing." - Signature Etiquette

You meant to say docbook.org not docbook.com. Also DocBook is an SGML DTD, not an XML DTD (I guess you knew this already). Interestingly Normal Walsh has written DocBk XML DTD, an XML DTD based on DocBook. DocBook 5.0 will be XML compatible. Btw, if you want to use XML extensively checkout task-xml and task-xml-dev in Debian potato. Ganesan