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

Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts




Le 1 sept. 2013 17:09, "Fabian Greffrath" <fabian@greffrath.com> a écrit :
>
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>
>
> * Package name    : fonts-urw-base35
>   Version         : 2:20130628-1
>   Upstream Author : (URW)++ Design & Development
> * URL             : http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/
> * License         : GPL (needs clarification, see #720906)
>   Programming Lang: fonts
>   Description     : Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
>  A commercial-quality set of the basic 35 PostScript Type 1 fonts.
>  Each font includes .pfb (outlines), .afm (metrics), and .pfm (Windows printer
>  metrics) files. The fonts are compatible with general Type 1 manipulation
>  tools as well as with Ghostscript.
>
> This package will contain an updated set of the 35 PostScript base fonts, that
> has been made available by upstream author URW++ to Artifex, the developers of
> Ghostscript, and is already shipped as part of ghostscript 9.09. It is intended
> to replace the gsfonts package, which contains a fork of an ancient version of
> these fonts with added cyrilic glyphs. However, that fork is long unmaintained
> upstream and the glyphs are of reportedly questionable quality, which I cannot
> judge for myself, though. The package will also integrate the effort to make
> the fonts available to an X server and thus replace the gsfonts-x11 package.
> Finally, I am going to convince the texlive maintainers to replace their copy
> of these fonts in the texlive-fonts-recommended package (used for the psnfss
> latex-package) with this pristine release. All corresponsing package
> maintainers are in CC.
>
> I am going to maintain this package under the umbrella of the pkg-fonts team.
> The license for the fonts used to be GPL, but a corresponding note has
> apparently been forgotten in the current release. This issue is reported as
> #720906 in Debian (against the ghostscript package, which already ships an
> updated version of these fonts, but not yet this latest update) and has been
> brought to the attention of ghostscript upstream who will strive for
> clarification with URW++ in the short term.

GPL strait or GPL with font exception?
>
>  - Fabian
>


Reply to: