FreeType2 Patent Violation?
dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Nov 26 20:16:51 PST 2005
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I feel our enabling of the
> Bytecode Interpreter in the FreeType2 source *is* a violation of
> Apple's patent.
Enabling it does, not telling how to enable it.
> Perhaps we can all visit this issue again and clarify it for me
> how we are *not* in violation.
I can't see how not.
> I understand we are not *distributing* code that includes the
> enabling of the Interpreter, but having the instruction in the
> book as the recommended default installation seems in violation.
Nah. Information is free...what you do with it on the otherhand...
> Perhaps I'm just overly concerned. I would appreciate it if some
> of you that remember previous conversation about this could relay
> what you remember. I searched the archives, but didn't really find
> anything useful.
Nor did I WRT the patent, however, I remember only a discussion of the
'new' method to sidestep the patented bytecode interpreter. This is all
from very very fuzzy memory, to date it...early 2003 maybe? Something
to the effect of a new method of hinting to sidestep the patent issue.
I wanted to say it was at 2.1.0 and 2.1.1, but I just found this post
that suggests otherwise:
I do remember now that the new feature sucked at first..then got better,
and there was another thread about it elsewhere, but I can't seem to
find it. At least I was somewhat close on the date. :-) Is the
autohinter still functional? Has anyone compared side by side?
Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about it, or even how to disable it
on the fly (or if that's even possible) so as to check out the
differences. I just happen to remember the threads.
Maybe that'll at least help jog the memory a bit?
-- DJ Lucas
More information about the blfs-dev