Re: TeX Gyre Fonts, ftp-master email
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 16:54 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 29 Jun 2009, Ralf Stubner wrote:
> > Concerning the LPPL, AFAIK it is not inherited by derived works. If it
> > were, the change in license would be absolutly useless, since the GUST
> > font license while derived from LPPL is still a different license. But
>
> Wrong. GUST Font License == LPPL. It only adds one clause that is not
> legally required.
Sorry for the bad memory on my side.
> I would consider the source of tex gyre
> - URW fonts -> now LPPL
> - cyrillic character by Valek Filippov
> - Vietnamese characters by Han The Thanh
>
> So the question is under which license fall the other chars.
Both Valek Filippov and Han The Thanh have released their work under
GNU GPL. This has not changed by the additional license under which
the base fonts are now available. Neglecting the issue whether it is
legally possible to chage the license of these works retrospectively,
I am sure that Han The Thanh would have no problem with using LPPL. I
do not know about Valek Filippov. It has been years since I have been
in contact with him.
> But honestly, are we still fighting on something like that?
Who is fighting? Not me! I only try to get the facts straight so that
those who have to make the decisions, which is not me, can make them
in an educated way. My personal opinion is that the license situation
of TeX Gyre Fonts is not good if one wants to be *strict* with
licenses. It is ok if one allows for a certain degree of fuzziness. I
am not in the position to decide what is the right thing to do here.
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: