Mike A. Harris wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Thomas Dodd wrote:
>
>>Are we loosing popular fonts, or are we loosing fonts
>>that were seldom used?
>>
>>
>wake up and say "lets remove fonts and piss everyone off". We
>
>
I didn't mean to imply that. It was more, did the owner decide
to piss everyone off, unless they get paid.
I use the default fonts. I don't do GUI publishing, so I wouldn't
notice if almost all the font's were removed.
I change the size of a font in emacs, mozilla, or gnome/gtk+,
but other than that I need 2 fonts, fixed and variable witdth, and
I use fixed most of the time :)
>>We really need a new font type. One with the look
>>of TrueType but without patent restrictions.
>>
>>
>
>I really can't see how that can be accomplished. Truetype is not
>the problem. The specific method of hinting truetype fonts and
>using a bytecode interpreter is what is patented. You could do
>the same thing with any font type, and it would still potentially
>be impacted by Apple's patents (assuming they are actually
>valid).
>
>
A good example of why software patents should be invalidated,
never granted again.
>>Some topagraphy shop need to come up with the format,
>>and a nice set of free fonts to get every one to switch.
>>
>>
>Again, it isn't a font file format that is the problem. Read the
>exact patents apple has.
>
>
I ment replace the hinting method so it doesn't infringe. But the patent is
probably so vague it's probably impossible to not infringe. Again, SW
patents are evil.
>Indeed. The solution for now at least, is to recompile freetype
>with the interpreter enabled (convenient %define in the spec
>file).
>
If I do that, am I not infringing on the patent? Or does it only relate
to distribution
of a binary? I wondered how FreeType can have the code, and just not
enable it
by default. Doesn't it still infringe?
-Thomas
