Bug#496070: [ghostscript] opentypefont
Am Mittwoch, den 28.08.2013, 10:27 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> f) GUS TeX Gyre: unknown base 35 match, covers eastern european, GFL.
Tex-gyre decided to sacrifice strict metric compatiblity with the Adobe
fonts in favor of nicer aesthetics, e.g.
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/heros/readme-tex-gyre-heros.txt/view .
Thus, they may be preferable for type setting but are also unacceptable
for usage in ghostscript.
> For Postscript RIPs (Ghostscript and Poppler), base 35 match and GPL
> compatibility is important. I trust the Ghostscript project in picking
> e) as the best option for that, and we should package their pick in
> Debian (but IMO not branded as "Ghostscript pick", but "URW++ work"!).
e) is already part of ghostscript 9.09, though the font file names and
the font names in these files have been modified.
> For usees with TeX, especially if we want to try convince upstream to
> align with us, we need to take into account the licensing. TeXLive is
> licensed as LPPL, and whereas the initially freed URW++ work was later
> licensed also as LPPL, the newer works is maybe not.
Last time I asked, upstream seemed a bit stubborn about this issue and
there is also still a reply pending when I informed him about the
presence of the updated fonts last week. But I think we can convince the
Debian texlive maintainers to replace their font copies with symlinks to
the new urw fonts. Regarding the license, does everything in textlive
have to be under the LPPL or don't they also include stuff licensed
under the GPL?
> Seems you did such searches without quoting or other hinting, which
> only
> (roughty) tells the amount of hits with _either_ of those search
> terms.
It's a weak measure anyway. We should (try to) stick to how upstream
calls them.
> Do you have a reference to URW++ naming, or did you assume their
> naming
> from names of zip files redistributed by the Ghostscript project?
I was assuming from the names of the zip files they supplied to Artifex.
> I lost you here. Seems you took my quote out of its context and make
> similar point as I did.
Sorry if I was confusing. I just meant to say that it's already practice
that supplementary data which is neither affiliated nor restricted to a
speficic software but redistributed by the same project is called after
that project. I didn't know that you consider the package name
"poppler-data" also wrong, although upstream has chosen this name
itself.
- Fabian
Reply to: