desired effects to be achieved. From this point of
view, PostScript is good and PDF is better. Both
have long-established publically available standards,
and all sorts of software can generate good instances
of them, and I am not aware of any real limitation
on producing either good PS or good PDF, using Free
Software, which may be related to Adobe's proprietary
stance.
In my view, exactly the same principles apply to
viewers etc. If someone writes a good PDF viewer
which renders the GPL-generated PDF I and others
produce as well as Reader does, that's fine. But
so long as the existing GPL'd viewers don't, that's
too bad and I will patiently wait till the skilled
developers of these things get it right. Meanwhile,
I'll be using Reader.
BTW, this situation is not unique to PDF and Reader.
The same applies, more subtly, to PS. Ghostscript
is a case in point: its fonts are not Adobe fonts,
and differ subtly. My printer (Brother HL-1070)
is a "PostScript" printer (in that I can send it
raw PS and get a good printout); but in fact it
uses "BrotherScript" which is a PostScript emulation
and in particular the fonts, again, are subtly
different (to the extent that I have to tweak
certin things in my software to get some characters
to print where I want them to); and this is so that
Brother don't have to pay Adobe a royalty for using
true Adobe fonts.
However, if I had to produce camera-ready copy
for a publisher, who insisted (for design reasons)
on particular proprietary fonts, then I'd pay
for those fonts. And hope that the results (generated
by GPL'd software) would be sufficiently impressive
to scoop yet another handful of earth from beneath
that wall!
All the best,
Ted.
[1] "Patience, fleas. The night is long".
(Spanish proverb, allegedly; per Ernest Hemingway).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding(a)nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 08-Feb-02 Time: 09:57:38
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------