Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!bionet!arisia!roo!mdixon From: mdixon@parc.xerox.com (Mike Dixon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Adobe license changes. Message-ID: Date: 10 Oct 90 04:31:27 GMT References: <13363@cs.utexas.edu> <130112@gore.com> Sender: news@parc.xerox.com Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 17 In-reply-to: jacob@gore.com's message of 10 Oct 90 01:32:41 GMT Adobe makes a lot of money licensing controllers to people who sell postscript printers; i believe they charge quite a lot (e.g. more than the price of a NeXT machine) when the controllers are going into expensive printers (e.g. typesetters). given that, the 1.0 licensing agreement made a lot of sense from their point of view (if not from NeXT's); why put their precious rendering technology in a box that anyone can buy and use to drive any printer? of course Sun doesn't sell printers, so they have no such conflict of interest. given that, plus the fact that the postscript clone market is getting much more competitive, plus the fax software (which by itself would violate the 1.0 licensing agreement), i'd expect to see some changes in the 2.0 agreement. -- .mike.