Without a stylus (or a physical keyboard) any kind of tablet is useless for me. I would like to use it to read research papers and to make notes on the side.
Thank you, I now understand where the problem is. Still, I'm not so sure this would be so easy to fix.
They could have given permission to distribute a document without restriction when the fonts are embedded in it, and everything would have been OK.
What if I want to distribute a document containing the embedded fonts while imposing some restrictions on the document itself? Would I be able to do that if you only give me permissions to distribute the document without restriction? But maybe I'm mixing up without restriction and without restrictions:)
In the end, you are right, this is indeed a perfect example why it should be the lawyers who do the wording of licenses.
The license only says that the license "does not apply to any document created using the Font Software", not that the license does not apply *at all* once the font is embedded.
A little clarification, it's not the license that does not apply to documents created with the font, but the requirement that the font can only be distributed under the same license. Here is the precise text about this exception:
5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed
entirely under this license, and must not be distributed under any other license. The
requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document
created using the Font Software.
The problem in this case is that the license allows conversion of the font to any other license or public domain once it is embedded in a document. The license explicitly says that it no longer applies once the font's embedded. And the authors didn't realize that if you extract the font from the document, the license doesn't come back!
I find your interpretation of the license quite strange (but, well, I am not a lawyer). The license only says that the license "does not apply to any document created using the Font Software", not that the license does not apply *at all* once the font is embedded. If you extract a font out of the document, I suppose you obtain a copy of the original font, or at least a modified version of the original font, and the license does explicitly cover copies and modified versions. I would expect this holds for any copy or modified version, no matter by which process they were obtained.
I think that for free font licenses allowing the fonts to be embedded without posing restrictions on the license of the document is of paramount importance. Do you know any other font license that allows this form of embedding and is for sure lawyer-proof?
I'm very happy they pulled it through in the end! I also agree that this is a very significant contribution to open source, and we must be grateful to the people who designed these fonts. I'm also very happy that in the end they chose an OSI-approved license, which will allow this font to be part of all Linux distributions.
At the same time, it's hard not to notice not only the "schedule slippage" of 10 years or so, but also the fact that although they clearly had no clue how long this was going to take, they were always giving people false hope, by making very precise (but completely, completely off) "estimations" about when the project was going to be finished. By doing so, they just made idiots out of themselves, and gave the impression that the whole project is just vaporware. Should they have refrained from making such stupid predictions, and just informed the public about the progress they are making, there would be a lot less people feeling (rightfully!) deceived.
And do you think whoever manages this project has learned anything out of this? I don't think so! They are already giving "estimations" about when versions 1.1 and 1.2 will be out. Why on earth do they insist in trying to deceive everyone with their "estimations"? They already showed how terrible they are at estimating how long their work takes.
This article is probably the worst place to get general information about Romania (a better place would be Wikipedia). Yes, Romania has a big problem with online fraud, but this is probably the only accurate fact in the whole article.
Romania seems to be the hind part of the EU. So much so that Romanian workers are unwelcome in most of the EU, what with being well-skilled and very, very inexpensive.
Depends what you mean by unwelcome. If you mean unwelcome by some of the workers in Western European countries (unwelcome as in "stealing jobs" & "lowering the average salaries"), then yes, Romanians are definitely unwelcome in many places, because as you said they are not only cheap but also well-skilled. On the other hand, European companies and politicians are definitely very happy with the situation, since cheap labor is helping the European economy grow.
Stupid. Those fonts are primarily meant for TeX-based applications, for example LaTeX. rarely used characters are written with commands that start with backslash, for example: \ldots.
I think you are wrong. While these fonts will definitely also work with LaTeX, that is not the only purpose for which they were developed. Actually, I don't even think that LaTeX will be the primary user of this font. Whether this was intended or not, the primary user I see for this font is MathML, which means that you can view equations and even edit them visually in your browser.
Anyway, if these fonts were made only for LaTeX then why on earth would they release an OpenType version as beta, and leave the LaTeX package for later?
This beta test is limited to the OpenType version of the STIX Fonts. Now that the font designs are complete, we are working to prepare a LaTeX support package for the Type1 version of the STIX Fonts. This package should be ready for beta test before the end of 2007.
While this application is not really polished (or even finished if you want) it allows you to type equations in a WYSIWYG editor inside the browser and then export MathML, LaTeX or SVG if you want. At least as a proof-of-concept I think it's pretty cool:)
Full disclosure. I'm one of the authors of sMArTH. And yes, we were waiting for the STIX fonts for ages.
To me it seems like both projects took ridiculously long to complete and they were delayed over and over and over again. Anyway, for better or for worse now they are both here... in beta;)
They will have a big job replacing the computer modern fonts, especially if they don't make convenient LaTeX packeges to load the fonts.
They are working on it:
This beta test is limited to the OpenType version of the STIX Fonts. Now that the font designs are complete, we are working to prepare a LaTeX support package for the Type1 version of the STIX Fonts. This package should be ready for beta test before the end of 2007.
I wonder how much 2 of their months takes in real life. I assume it's something like 10 years, so don't be surprised if this gets delayed over and over, and over again.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it run emacs?
Google what?
Without a stylus (or a physical keyboard) any kind of tablet is useless for me. I would like to use it to read research papers and to make notes on the side.
What if I want to distribute a document containing the embedded fonts while imposing some restrictions on the document itself? Would I be able to do that if you only give me permissions to distribute the document without restriction? But maybe I'm mixing up without restriction and without restrictions :)
In the end, you are right, this is indeed a perfect example why it should be the lawyers who do the wording of licenses.
They look really clean and consistent ... all 9000 of them :)
A little clarification, it's not the license that does not apply to documents created with the font, but the requirement that the font can only be distributed under the same license. Here is the precise text about this exception:
I find your interpretation of the license quite strange (but, well, I am not a lawyer). The license only says that the license "does not apply to any document created using the Font Software", not that the license does not apply *at all* once the font is embedded. If you extract a font out of the document, I suppose you obtain a copy of the original font, or at least a modified version of the original font, and the license does explicitly cover copies and modified versions. I would expect this holds for any copy or modified version, no matter by which process they were obtained.
I think that for free font licenses allowing the fonts to be embedded without posing restrictions on the license of the document is of paramount importance. Do you know any other font license that allows this form of embedding and is for sure lawyer-proof?
I'm very happy they pulled it through in the end! I also agree that this is a very significant contribution to open source, and we must be grateful to the people who designed these fonts. I'm also very happy that in the end they chose an OSI-approved license, which will allow this font to be part of all Linux distributions. At the same time, it's hard not to notice not only the "schedule slippage" of 10 years or so, but also the fact that although they clearly had no clue how long this was going to take, they were always giving people false hope, by making very precise (but completely, completely off) "estimations" about when the project was going to be finished. By doing so, they just made idiots out of themselves, and gave the impression that the whole project is just vaporware. Should they have refrained from making such stupid predictions, and just informed the public about the progress they are making, there would be a lot less people feeling (rightfully!) deceived. And do you think whoever manages this project has learned anything out of this? I don't think so! They are already giving "estimations" about when versions 1.1 and 1.2 will be out. Why on earth do they insist in trying to deceive everyone with their "estimations"? They already showed how terrible they are at estimating how long their work takes.
I agree, the pictures are really horrible.
Found it: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2000-02-27/
- I'd like to start with a diagram.
- It's a bunch of shapes connected by lines.
I don't think geometric is a problem, but WTF is a "geometric center"?
Even more details on this: Sequoia Voting Systems site was defaced and subsequently taken down. Sweet :)
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8673726680080882009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWuteFLUPSY
That's why you shouldn't "buy now" without comparing prices. And eBay is an auction site! That's where the good deals usually are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE
You mean this guy ?
Anyway, if these fonts were made only for LaTeX then why on earth would they release an OpenType version as beta, and leave the LaTeX package for later?
While this application is not really polished (or even finished if you want) it allows you to type equations in a WYSIWYG editor inside the browser and then export MathML, LaTeX or SVG if you want. At least as a proof-of-concept I think it's pretty cool
Full disclosure. I'm one of the authors of sMArTH. And yes, we were waiting for the STIX fonts for ages.
To me it seems like both projects took ridiculously long to complete and they were delayed over and over and over again. Anyway, for better or for worse now they are both here ... in beta ;)