[Scribus] offtopic: microsoft must pay to adobe to include pdf exportcapability

Gregory Pittman gpittman
Tue Jun 6 03:55:39 CEST 2006

Steve Herrick wrote:
> On 6/5/06, Craig Ringer <craig at postnewspapers.com.au> wrote:
>> In this, so far, I tend to take MS's view. If Adobe's being
>> misrepresented, they're being awfully quite about it, too.
> They are being quiet, which is odd - one of the leading theories on
> Slashdot is that MS is setting themselves up as the victim so they'll
> be "forced" to roll out their own PDF replacement. If this is right,
> Adobe would do well to speak up soon.
I think Adobe's take on this might be something like what we can see 
with some open source software available for free, but not available for 
sale by others, including modified versions. MS Office is a BIG 
moneymaker for MS, and it's pretty clear that the addition of PDF output 
is a significant addition to Office's capabilities. MS, perhaps, wants 
to take the point of view, "Well, Office is what people are paying for, 
we're throwing in the PDF exporter for free...", to which Adobe 
rightfully responds, "That's a bunch of hogwash."
In that sense, I can see Adobe's side, even though I don't believe that 
any file format, simply a way of storing someone else's content, should 
be protected.


More information about the scribus mailing list