[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk***Subject**:**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts****From**:*Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>***Date**: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:13:05 +0200

> The MMa representative I spoke to said it sounded perfectly reasonable > to want to distribute documents written using those fonts. But then he > sounded surprised when I said most commercial fonts did not allow such > useage, so I gave up at the time, not knowing how to find someone who > could give an official answer. I have no idea either. Our admin installed Mathematical 3.0 some months back, and since I'm using it only rarely, I didn't even know that it came with its own fonts until a few days ago. As for the licensing, it is probably not perfectly legal to carry the fonts home, even if you have a licensed installation at work, but if I did so, that was of course for testing purposes only ;-) > Still it would be nice if those fonts could be made ueable, available > in bold and normal weight. (Some of the glyphs looked a bit odd though:-) > and I gave up thought of forcing them through fontinst once I saw they > use standed encoding symbol names. Yes, it would be interesting indeed, although've they made it more difficult than it needed to be. Once, you've got an .etx file written manually, you could still work from afm -> tfm -> pl and reencode the stuff into OML/OMS/OMX or whatever encoding you prefer. I have no idea yet, as to how to good or bad these fonts would turn out for actual typesetting with TeX. Cheers, Ulrik.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts** - Next by Date:
**mathfont 0.53** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts** - Next by thread:
**Re: Mathematica symbol fonts** - Index(es):