This is Bitmaps-to-non-NeXT-printers in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 17-Apr-1989 13:10:03 From: Unknown Subject: Bitmaps to non-NeXT printers (was Re: Some Random NeXT Thoughts) In article <8473@polya.Stanford.EDU> rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) writes: > >No, no, no. Use the DPS in the cube to handle the PostScript, and >just send bitmaps to the printer. Especially with the new DJ+, >this should work *very* well. > >> What would make sense would be to port the Ghostscript Postscript >> to HP PCL converter for the NeXT machine. Ghostscript builds the > >Why, with DSP in the cube? > >-tom Exporting PostScript generated on the NeXT to other NeXTs (that's how remote printing is done), non-NeXTs, and non-NeXT printers is kosher, but doing the same with the bitmaps generated by DPS on the NeXT is not. Here is an excerpt from the ``NeXT Software License Agreement (Preliminary Software Releases)'' contained in the ``Read this first!'' booklet that comes with the NeXT: ... You agree not to make use of the NeXT Preliminary Software, directly or indirectly, to print bitmap images generated by the NeXT Preliminary Software, or to generate fonts or typefaces, other than on a single NeXT Computer in conjunction with a single NeXT computer. ... And, of course, Mr. Phelps, should you or any of your IM staff break the seal on a Software Release 0.8 optical disk, that will constitute acceptance of the accompanying license agreement. NeXT (printers), Adobe (PostScript), and Linotype AG (fonts) are protecting themselves. Is the way that they are going about it reasonable? You decide. So, for a non-NeXT, non-PostScript printer, you will need Postscript to printer software (e.g., Ghostscript). Mark >From: phcoates@uqvax.decnet.uq.oz
Date: Sun 18-Apr-1989 13:20:53 From: Unknown Subject: Re: Bitmaps to non-NeXT printers (was Re: Some Random NeXT Thoughts) In article <23241@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> izumi@violet.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >In article <4707@umd5.umd.edu> feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) writes: >>Exporting PostScript generated on the NeXT to other NeXTs (that's how remote >>printing is done), non-NeXTs, and non-NeXT printers is kosher, but doing the >>same with the bitmaps generated by DPS on the NeXT is not. >> >>Here is an excerpt from the ``NeXT Software License Agreement (Preliminary >>Software Releases)'' contained in the ``Read this first!'' booklet that >>comes with the NeXT: >> ... >> You agree not to make use of the NeXT Preliminary Software, directly >> or indirectly, to print bitmap images generated by the NeXT >> Preliminary Software, or to generate fonts or typefaces, other than >> on a single NeXT Computer in conjunction with a single NeXT computer. > >I don't see anything in this excerpt which prevents us from >transmitting bitmaps generated by DSP to elsewhere for viewing or >printing. Are you sure of your interpretation? The above excerpt is preceded in the license agreement by: The NeXT Preliminary Software is intended to be used to generate screen displays with resolutions of 92 dots per inch on the NeXT Computer and to print images with print resolution up to 400 dots per inch on the NeXT printer. ... That complete excerpt (an oxymoron?), combined with the fact that the NeXT people at the support class that I attended explicitly stated that the DPS-produced bitmaps are off-limits makes me pretty sure of my interpretation. And as long as there is any question, I am going to stick with my interpretation to make sure that I don't break the license agreement. Make my day -- PROVE me wrong. >I hope you don't see anything wrong with photocopying NeXT generated >page in thousands, and distributing them to other people. That (the wording) wasn't necessary. If anyone is not satisfied with my interpretation, ask your legal staff, or, better yet, ask the NeXT legal staff. A NeXT can interpret PostScript and display it on the screen or on a printer. It can also shove PostScript to other computers and printers. Once something has been printed or displayed, that output is subject to the copyright and license agreements of the program that produced it. If neither that program's license nor copyright laws forbid it, you can make as many copies of that output as you like -- send me a few copies if it is interesting. While it is in the bitmap form generated by DPS, it is protected by the license agreement. >How is that differerent from transmitting bitmaps to the same people? The difference is in the license agreement. When you break the seal on 0.8 software, you are agreeing to abide by the license agreement, even if some of the clauses appear arbitrary or nonsensical. Besides, in most cases, the original, unencumbered PostScript is smaller than the resulting bitmap and is more easily transported. >Izumi Ohzawa >izumi@violet.berkeley.edu Mark >From: chari@nueces.UUCP (Chris Whatley)
Date: Sun 19-Apr-1989 07:10:58 From: Unknown Subject: Re: Bitmaps to non-NeXT printers (was Re: Some Random NeXT Thoughts) In article <4719@umd5.umd.edu> feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) writes: >In article <23241@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> izumi@violet.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >>> >>>Here is an excerpt from the ``NeXT Software License Agreement (Preliminary >>>Software Releases)'' contained in the ``Read this first!'' booklet that >>>comes with the NeXT: >>> ... >>> You agree not to make use of the NeXT Preliminary Software, directly >>> or indirectly, to print bitmap images generated by the NeXT >>> Preliminary Software, or to generate fonts or typefaces, other than >>> on a single NeXT Computer in conjunction with a single NeXT computer. >The above excerpt is preceded in the license agreement by: > The NeXT Preliminary Software is intended to be used to generate > screen displays with resolutions of 92 dots per inch on the NeXT > Computer and to print images with print resolution up to 400 dots > per inch on the NeXT printer. > >That complete excerpt (an oxymoron?), combined with the fact that the NeXT >people at the support class that I attended explicitly stated that the >DPS-produced bitmaps are off-limits makes me pretty sure of my >interpretation. Is it just me? I still don't understand how the above prohibits caputuring DPS generated bitmaps and using them in any way we wish. So, NeXT *intended* their software to be used that way. Isn't finding *UNintended* use called innovation? Besides, although not relevent to NeXT (yet), there is a program called "Lasertalk" for Mac which, as I understand it, sucks in bitmaps from the PostScript printer to allow interactive use of PostScript and direct viewing of current images in the printer frame buffer. How could they do it, but not us? Unless Adobe is suing Emereld City Software which sells this program, NeXT must be the one that is trying to prevent free use of bitmaps. Restricting bitmaps is akin to placing similar restrictions to compiler generated binaries which are generally unrestricted in their distribution. How could the restriction on bitmaps, other than in the context of recommended programming practice, would be in any interest of NeXT? I sincerely hope that "off-limit"-ness of bitmaps is in the context of RECOMMENDED programming practices under NeXTStep, which becomes REQUIRED programming practice for NeXT Registered Developers. This is because they sign an developer agreement in which the developer agrees to make the program comform to NeXT program interface specifications. But, that should not legally bind end users or NON-registered programmers. Would someone else who attended the support class care to confirm or deny what Mark says? > >>I hope you don't see anything wrong with photocopying NeXT generated >>page in thousands, and distributing them to other people. >That (the wording) wasn't necessary. If anyone is not satisfied with my I apologize for that. >Once something has been printed or displayed, that output is subject to the >copyright and license agreements of the program that produced it. If > >Besides, in most cases, the original, unencumbered PostScript is smaller >than the resulting bitmap and is more easily transported. I don't want to spend too much time interpreting the license agreement, but I don't like what I see above. And If the above interpretation is indeed what NeXT is trying to subject us to, then I would like that changed. Could anyone from NeXT comment on this? I agree that the original PostScript is probably more compact and suitable for transmission. But I imagine a situation where I want to take the bitmap created by DPS, say by screen cut-and-paste, into FAX program, merge it with text and send it out via modem. Is this going to be illegal? Don't bitmaps belong to US rather than to NeXT or Adobe, regardless of whether it's comitted to paper or in computer memory? At least, that part of bitmap created inside a window (not including icons, buttons, and look-and-feel items)? Don't we own bitmaps we create with NeXTPaint program, or it it NeXT's or Adobe's property ? I am in no hurry to break any agreement (to which I will agree in a few weeks, hopefully), but I certainly don't want my rights to my bitmaps taken away by passing them through DPS image operator. Izumi Ohzawa izumi@violet.berkeley.edu >From: wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew)
Date: Sun 18-Apr-1989 14:38:37 From: Unknown Subject: Re: Bitmaps to non-NeXT printers (was Re: Some Random NeXT Thoughts) It seems that the intention of the shrink wrap agreement limiting use of generated bitmaps to single Next computer and single printer is somewhat indistinct. The question is what constitutes their bitmaps and what consititues my bitmaps. I agree that it would be unfair to download their postscript fonts to an Apple laser connected to a vax. I wouldn't feel any apprehension of downloading a rasterized version of a document I produced to some other printer. The raster image of the document is a work of art of my own making, and ought to be covered by the same legal precedents of ownership as are of illustrations in textbooks. That my bitmap contains patterns of bits that look like Next fonts is irrelevent, as the appearance of a font can not be copyrighted under current interpretations of the law. Then there is the question of enforcability of shrinkwrap agreements. To the best of my knowledge, to date illegal multiple use of software has been persued in courts on the grounds of copyright infringement rather than shrinkwrap agreements. Bill I am not a lawyer, this advice is worth exactly what you paid for >From: avie@wb1.cs.cmu.edu (Avadis Tevanian)
Date: Sun 19-Apr-1989 18:49:57 From: Unknown Subject: Re: Bitmaps to non-NeXT printers (was Re: Some Random NeXT Thoughts) In article <23291@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> izumi@violet.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >Unless Adobe is suing Emereld City Software which sells this >program, NeXT must be the one that is trying to prevent >free use of bitmaps. I am not totally sure, but I think this restriction is part of our licensing agreement with Adobe. I think the fear is that someone could build a Postscript printer without paying royalties to Adobe by just plugging into our printer port and using the DPS software. Of course, anyone can plug any Postscript printer into the serial ports and use the print spooler software to send Postscript down.
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.