FreeType2 Patent Violation?

DJ Lucas 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:

http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/blfs-dev/2003-July/002348.html

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 mailing list