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

Bug#202472: marked as forwarded (tetex-extra: doublestroke type-1 fonts missing?)



Your message dated Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:32:05 +0200
with message-id <20031015113205.GD6082@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
has caused the Debian Bug report #202472,
regarding tetex-extra: doublestroke type-1 fonts missing?
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) 202472-forwarded@bugs.debian.org.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 202472-forwarded) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Oct 2003 12:28:56 +0000
>From hille42@web.de Wed Oct 15 07:28:23 2003
Return-path: <hille42@web.de>
Received: from smtp02.web.de (smtp.web.de) [217.72.192.151] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1A9klL-0004PD-00; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:28:23 -0500
Received: from [80.184.44.128] (helo=preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de)
	by smtp.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #459)
	id 1A9klG-0004GW-00; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:28:20 +0200
Received: by preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id A3A2346E4; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:32:05 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:32:05 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
To: 202472-forwarded@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Thomas Esser <te@informatik.uni-hannover.de>
Subject: (fwd) Bug#202472: doublestroke type-1 fonts missing?
Message-ID: <20031015113205.GD6082@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Organization: Hilmar Preusse Inc.
X-Uptime: 11:57:12 up  1:26,  3 users,  load average: 1.20, 1.26, 1.20
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.22 i686
X-www.distributed.net: OGR: 18 packets (352.76 stats units) [2.34 Mnodes/s]
X-Face: .n=jHnz:2pu0c0)ef]4O#1FE{Vak?h89!g7_#2+PzSRoIU[pJFNnz>gLhn}UMwv}4/j{X.. 2E+>U>P!`PYk
X-Confirmation-Request: yes
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Hilmar Preusse" <hille42@web.de>
Sender: hille42@web.de
Delivered-To: 202472-forwarded@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
	tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
	version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_13
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_13 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)

Hi Thomas,

Down here in the DBTS we got again an inclusion wish
(http://bugs.debian.org/202472). We were not sure about the licence
of that stuff. What do you think? If it will not go into teTeX cause
of that I'll contact the author to relicense.

Hilmar
----- Forwarded message from Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch> -----

From: frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)
Reply-To: frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster),
	202472@bugs.debian.org
To: Hein Roehrig <hein@acm.org>
Cc: 202472@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#202472: doublestroke type-1 fonts missing?
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:39:21 +0200
Message-ID: <87el0hckwm.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
References: <20030723084748.GB23064@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
	<E19f1o3-0001Z1-00@qaip3> <877k69r0i6.fsf@qaip3.ins.cwi.nl>
	<20030723121853.GB26061@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
X-Mailing-List: <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/4959

Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:

> On 23.07.03 Hein Roehrig (hein@acm.org) wrote:
>
> Dear Hein,
>
> That message seems from March of 2002. Actually the fonts on CTAN are
> more recent. Things are changing...
>
>> | You may use and distribute these fonts as you like.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> | You may modify these fonts as long as you do not rename the files
>> | to one of those names that Donald E. Knuth chose for the Computer
>> | Modern fonts. (And seriously, who would want to do that?)
>> 
> Is that DFSG-free?

Formally not, I fear - according to the to-be new LPPL one should be
allowed to distribute them as, e.g., cmr12.mf but change the
font_identifier-line, as I understand it (This still means to meet the
"I am allowed to break my system, not?"-criterion of free
licenses...). However, since probably a lot of TeX stuff will take some
time "upgrading" to that license and we certainly won't throw all the
"delayed" ones out¹, we can as well let these enter.

> As there are already some parts of the fonts in tetex, I propose now,
> to include the updated version + *.pfb. We should forward to TE, if
> the license question in clarified.

ACK.

Frank


¹except some that explicitly refuse to use the new license, or after a
couple of months/years
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
sigmentation fault



Reply to: