[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#720906: marked as done (src:ghostscript: URW++ fonts lacks licensing)

Your message dated Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:30:52 +0200
with message-id <20130902123052.30057.51505@bastian.jones.dk>
and subject line Re: Bug#720906: src:ghostscript: URW++ fonts lacks licensing
has caused the Debian Bug report #720906,
regarding src:ghostscript: URW++ fonts lacks licensing
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
720906: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=720906
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: src:ghostscript
Version: 9.05~dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream
Justification: Policy 2.2.1

The Ghostscript project updated its URW++ "base 35" font set for
its 9.05 release, to files no longer including embedded licensing.

Fonts shipped since then come without explicit licensing.

 - Jonas

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2013-08-26 09:55:16)
> The Ghostscript project updated its URW++ "base 35" font set for
> its 9.05 release, to files no longer including embedded licensing.
> 
> Fonts shipped since then come without explicit licensing.

Above was a misunderstanding: For 9.05 and 9.06 releases of Ghostscript, 
URW++ fonts were not updated but merely reverted to the pristine files 
from ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/ghost/gnu/ghostscript-fonts-4.0.tar.gz 
sources - i.e. moving from draft work on 1.06 of the fonts to official 
1.05.

So licensing for those releases is same as ever: GPL (later evolved to 
AGPL) and LPPL (not promoted by Ghostscript but used in TeX community).

For Ghostscript 9.09 the URW++ fonts were updated to 1.10 without 
stating licensing for that newer font release - but this was rectified 
in the Ghostscript 9.10 release including same newer fonts and adding 
this to the LICENSE file:

>Additionally, the font files (in Resource/Font) are distributed
>under the AGPL with the following exemption:
>
>As a special exception, permission is granted to include these font
>programs in a Postscript or PDF file that consists of a document that
>contains text to be displayed or printed using this font, regardless
>of the conditions or license applying to the document itself.

So all in all, font licensing is now satisifed for all recent Debian 
releases of Ghostscript.

Thanks a lot to Ghostscript employees for help clarify this.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: