[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: checksum inconsistencies for virtual postscript fonts on CTAN
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: checksum inconsistencies for virtual postscript fonts on CTAN
- From: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:27:26 +0200
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <199807281604.JAA24733@june.cs.washington.edu>(firstname.lastname@example.org)
> The list of fonts with SC/Osf in expert sets as against fonts with
> SC/OsF only should be matched against the list of fonts taken over
> from Linotype as against Adobe fonts or fonts from other sources.
Yes, indeed. There is a noticeable correlation between suppliers
and categories (FontMM = Adobe Multiple Master, FontMT = Monotype,
FontBE = Berthold, FontLH = Linotype-Hell, FontLP = Linotype-??)
> Linotype seems never to have believed in the expert set (hence, most
> often, no ff ligatures, and other limitations). It is not likely to
> change. Linotype has sold itself to Heidelberg-something-or-other,
> and seems to have gone out of the font business altogether. I don't
> know who pursues license questions. Linotype used to be the most
> sensitive of all the major houses.
Try http://www.fonts.de/ They still seem to be active.
$ whois -h whois.ripe.net fonts.de
descr: Linotype-Hell AG
descr: D-23107 Kiel
Personally, I find it a very queistionable idea to assign the domain
"fonts.de" to any particular supplier, but that's business.
Hope this helps.