At 10:29 +0000 1998/12/15, David Carlisle wrote:
>You appear to be (deliberately?) confusing two things. The pdf or
>postscript _languages_ and particular implementations of _interpreters_
>for those languages.

No, I do not confuse those things: As long as Adobe own whatever it is,
they can call the shots.

>If you criticise pdftex on the grounds that pdf is `commercial'
>then you should make exactly the same objection about dvips.

So, if dvips and becomes commercially hot, then Adobe can ask for license
fees for both dvips and pdftex: In the case of dvips that is wholly
unlikely, because it is just an utility. In the case of pdftex, that is
probably unlikely, because the it is just a niche.

But suppose one would design a typesetting system that provides a bigger
market: Then Adobe might want to do that. Whatever the rules are now, Adobe
might decide to change them.

I just point out how those things work -- I have no idea if it is of any
importance in the case of PDF.

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
                  * Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
                  * AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>