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/>