https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466
David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?
--- Comment #8 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #3)
Reading
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/index_html#Licensing
they got URW to publish the fonts under their own pet license to avoid
dealing with Ghostscript licensing they didn't understood. So as long as
they rebased to that release with no ghostscript import they are ok
legal-wise (do check with spot if you feel like it, though I'm pretty sure
he'd have blocked them from TexLive during its TEX audits if there was still
a problem).
That sucks if GS added fixes over URW material, but that's how free software
works when projects disagree on licensing.
Actually, that note mentions Ghostscript 4.0, which is really old. We currently
have 9.X for a quite long time in Fedora now. That might be worth poking in it,
to see what the current status is... :)
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #1)
Someone should really package tex gyre in Fedora, now that the legal
issues
have been solved (IIRC). That's basically the same fonts in an opentype
container.
Sorry, I'm not going through that rabbit hole again... :D The reason I went
into updating urw-base35-fonts was that those are needed by ghostscript, and I
want to finally fix all the issues related to f***ed building process. However,
if you want, feel free to take inspiration from urw-base35-fonts specfile:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/urw-base35-fonts/blob/master/f/urw-bas...
It should be more or less OK (I'm trying to keep it up-to-date), and should be
well commented.
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #3)
It does not matter if they are packaged as texlive subpackages or as
independent projects as long as the template is applied. Also, whoever
packages them needs to ship some fontconfig files that aliases the various
past names of the fonts to the new one for backwards compat. Again there are
templates to do so in fontpackages-devel.
That's another issue. Ideally, the good fonts should not only have the
fontconfig files properly created for them, but AppStream files as well. I had
to create/copy & modify those files manually for urw-base35-fonts, and it took
quite some effort to convince usptream to include them in their releases.
The AppStream for font files allow users to see the preview of them in Gnome
Software (and other software centers in other distros that are using
AppStream).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.