Re: font license (texlive-fonts-recommended)

just a quick answerbefore falling asleep:

I added the override because that is something in progress with Adobe to be sorted out.

There is no good solution, no better than ignoring this issue for now.

If Debian zealots get too crazy about it and butcher the distribution from every useable font, so it be, but for now I simply ignore the issue.

That probably didn't help, but at least it states the current status!

Norbert

PS: zealots means people seeing threads where there is no more risk of being sued than being hit by a meteroite!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info

JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer

GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2014/07/03, at 17:38, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" <umlaeute@debian.org> wrote:

hi,

i'm currently preparing the upload of the "gmerlin" Debian package,
which contains a type1 font that triggers the lintian error
  "license-problem-font-adobe-copyrighted-fragment"

so i did some research on how other packages handle this error, and came
across "texlive-fonts-recommended", which contains other type1 fonts
that appear to have the same issue:

the thing is, that there *is* an embedded fragment in my font that says
"(c) Adobe", but the fragment is *not* the one mentioned at [1], but
instead a very frugal:
<snip>
  [ {} {} {}
  {systemdict /internaldict known not
  {pop 3}
  {1183615869 systemdict /internaldict get exec
  dup /startlock known
  {/startlock get exec}
  {dup /strtlck known
  {/strtlck get exec}
  {pop 3}
  ifelse}
  ifelse}
  ifelse
  } executeonly
  ] ND
</snip>

this looks suspiciously similar to what is included in "uhvro8a.pfb" in
the texlive-fonts-recommented package.

now, it seems you have added a lintian-override for this particular
error, but i couldn't find any documentation (neither a comment in the
override file, nor a remark in debian/changelog) on what justifies this
override.

as i would like to also add this override in my package, i would like to
ask you, why you think this is a false-positive (or whatever).

mgfrdsa
IOhannes

PS: please CC me, as i'm not subscribed on the list.

[1] http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/opentype/index_ps_code3.html