Talk:MetaType1
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD
| action1date = 13 August 2011
| action1link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/METATYPE1
| action1result = Kept
| currentstatus = }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Low|software=yes|software-importance=Low|needs-infobox=yes}}
{{WikiProject Typography|importance=Low|needs-infobox=yes}}
}}
License
METATYPE1 doesn't include any license, so it is non-free in at least some copyright systems. Should it be removed from the Free TeX Software category?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.199.91 (talk • contribs) 21:09:51, 9 Sep 2007 (UTC)
Really no license?
METATYPE1 does include a licence. According to
[http://tug.ctan.org/cgi-bin/ctanPackageInformation.py?id=metatype1 CTAN package page] and
[http://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/utilities/metatype1/README Readme file on CTAN]
it's in public domain, the license reads:
This is METATYPE1 package -- a tool for creating Type 1 fonts using
METAPOST. The package belongs to public domain (no copyrights, copylefts,
copyups, copydowns, etc.).
--ChewbaccaKL (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Requested move 4 October 2021
:The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
----
{{check talk wp}}
{{Tmbox
|small =
|imageright =
|type = move
|text = It was proposed in this section that :METATYPE1 be renamed and moved to {{no redirect|MetaType1}}.
----
{{smallcaps|result:}}
Moved. See support below with no objections, so this request is granted. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
----
}}
:METATYPE1 → {{no redirect|MetaType1}} – The http://www.ntg.nl/maps/26/15.pdf reference cited in the article as well as a further search at Google Scholar suggest that "MetaType1" is at least as widely used as the title of the article. The suggested title should resolve the current inconsistency with Metafont and MetaPost, which can all also be stylised in all caps/small caps. ~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Not an acronym so, per the MOS, no ALLCAPS. Primergrey (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)