Package: latex-xft-fonts Version: 0.1-5 Severity: serious Hi, the package claims in its copyright file: These fonts were converted from the LaTeX .pfb forms, and are under the respective licenses of the sources. In this case, it would be good if it would be created from the .pfb-forms "on the fly" during compilation - bugs like 388795 could be fixed by that way better. "Would be good" means not doing so is a release critical in this case. (I'm even wondering if #388795 is not a license violation, as I'm quite sure without looking the original fonts include "]".) Cheers, Andi
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote: fontforge can probably do that (even automatable, it can be called on the commandline). You might be right, because ,---- | [...] the AMS does require that the AMS copyright notice be removed | from any derivative versions of the fonts which have been altered in | any way. `---- However, I don't know whether forgetting one character qualifies as a derivative version, instead of just being a bug... Regards, Frank
Hi, There is a bug filed against the latex-xft-fonts Debian package about the lack of source code for it (http://bugs.debian.org/402148). This prevents the package from entering etch (the upcoming stable release of Debian). Apparently the fonts have been converted from the corresponding LaTeX .pfb fonts. Does anyone know how this was done? Is it possible to automate?
John Levon: Perhaps fontforge? Not exactly, because these fonts have been generated from the original font files. The thinking is that they have been "compiled" from the originals. But I'm not sure that's really the case here. If you had to fix up stuff, and have forgotten exactly how you generated the fonts, then I think the ttf files actually qualify as "source" as far as Debian is concerned. Debian's definition of source code is "preferred form of modification", which these files seem to be. I'm not familiar with these fonts so I can't say.
John Levon: Perhaps fontforge? Not exactly, because these fonts have been generated from the original font files. The thinking is that they have been "compiled" from the originals. But I'm not sure that's really the case here. If you had to fix up stuff, and have forgotten exactly how you generated the fonts, then I think the ttf files actually qualify as "source" as far as Debian is concerned. Debian's definition of source code is "preferred form of modification", which these files seem to be. I'm not familiar with these fonts so I can't say.
Forgot to CC the bug tracker.---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ---------- Subject: Re: Source for latex-xft-fonts? Date: Dienstag, 16. Januar 2007 20:59 From: Georg Baum <Georg.Baum@post.rwth-aachen.de> To: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2007 20:36 schrieb John Levon: You probably used fontforge (formerly called PFAEdit IIRC). No, it is rather like looking for the source of a jpeg that somebody created by manually modifying another one. This cannot be automated either. To me the ttf fonts look like a derived work of the original pfb versions. So, these could be considered as source, but the normal way of automated building from source would not work, so it would be pointless. AFAIK the original pfb fonts are under the LPPL, so I think the following would work: - The ttf files are considered as source technically. - The README documents that they were converted from the .pfb files and polished manually after that. - The README documents where to get the .pfb files (required by the LPPL). IANAL, but I see no reason why this would not work. Georg-------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
latex-xft-fonts currently can't enter etch because of bug #402148
("doesn't contain source"). However, I would like to downgrade this
bug and ask you to let the package enter etch. The reason is that the
ttf files are the actual source for latex-xft-fonts (see the bug log),
they are only a derived work of the (free) original LaTeX fonts.
Although I'm not listed as the maintainer of the package, I am part of
the team now maintaining LyX. Piotr Roszatycki used to maintain LyX,
but hasn't been the maintainer for a long time, so the LyX team should
probably take over latex-xft-fonts as well (the upstream source is the
same as LyX).
What do you think? It would be very useful to have latex-xft-fonts in
etch, and it is pretty stable.
I'm closing this bug now, because it clearly isn't a bug. See the bug report log for details.
reopen 402148 found 0.1-5 retitle 402148 License violation clone 402148 -1 severity -1 minor retitle -1 Should be automatically generated from pfb source thanks Per Olofsson <pelle@debian.org> wrote: Sorry, this is simply not true. For example, the bug log contains this: ,---- | > (I'm even wondering if #388795 is not a license violation, as I'm quite | > sure without looking the original fonts include "]".) | | You might be right, because | | ,---- | | [...] the AMS does require that the AMS copyright notice be removed | | from any derivative versions of the fonts which have been altered in | | any way. | `---- | | However, I don't know whether forgetting one character qualifies as a | derivative version, instead of just being a bug... `---- Meanwhile, you or upstream claim that the ttf version has been manually altered considerably, is to be considered a derived version, and hence the pfb files are not the source, but the ttf files themselves are. Well, in this case this bug may not be a "source is missing" RC bug, but it's still a "license violation" RC bug. Earlier in this bug Georg Baum said that the original pfb fonts are under the LPPL, but this is wrong - most are under an individual unnamed license. Part of it is quoted above and requires to remove the AMS copyright notice from derivative versions, which has not been done with the latex-xft-fonts package. Moreover, I think even the "source is missing" issue is still a bug, even if not RC. The copyright file states that the pfb files have been "hinted and touched up with FontLab v.3.0c". Hinting and other changes can also be scripted, and it would be a nice thing to do that automated with fontforge, starting from the pfb files. I would regard this as wishlist, or minor, but I don't think this part of the bug should be closed. Regards, Frank