Record the edition rather than only the name
Nimbus Roman appears in commercial URW listings and in the URW base35 distribution maintained by Artifex. These sources describe different packages and should not be treated as one interchangeable download. Start with the family, style and source of the actual files. A familiar name in a PDF font list does not establish the license or format of a separately obtained edition.
Distinguish the base35 resources
Artifex describes its repository as substitutes for the 35 fonts required by PostScript Language Level 2. It includes Type 1, OTF and TTF resources, AFM metrics and Fontconfig metadata. This explains why a Nimbus-related workflow may involve more than one file type. Choose the format required by the application and keep its supporting files together rather than renaming a resource to imitate another format.
Use the documented TeX setup when relevant
The TeX Users Group’s font catalogue gives a specific Nimbus Roman example using mathptmx and T1 encoding and identifies the illustrated implementation as Type 1. Treat that as documentation of the demonstrated setup, not a universal recommendation for every modern compiler or template. Compare body text, italic passages and equations in the actual document. The LaTeX family guide covers the broader selection context.
Compare the available styles and output
The URW commercial package listing includes regular, italic, bold, bold italic and extra-bold styles. Check the exact package rather than assuming a shared name promises identical coverage across distributions. Inspect paragraph wrapping and numerals after changing a document. Retain the relevant license with the source files. The file-type guide explains formats, while the Times New Roman guide supplies a separately named family for comparison rather than an identity claim.
Your questions, answered.
Does every Nimbus Roman download have the same terms?
Do not infer terms from the shared family name. Read the license accompanying the exact distribution.
Is the TeX catalogue example the same as every OpenType edition?
No. The cited example explicitly documents a Type 1 implementation and a particular TeX setup.
Sources & background
Sources supporting this page’s explanations. Practical examples are our editorial suggestions.