Re: PMF license / was: Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts

[Felix Schulte <felix.schulte@gmail.com>]

Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Roland Mainz wrote:
>
> | Again, this does not cover the PMF files. The original files have been
> | commited by Hewlett-Packard under the MIT/X Consortium license many many
> | years ago (and the files for the Postscript DDX were later refreshed by
> | me to fix a minor bug - and I committed them under the same license:
> | MIT/X.org). The so-called "copyright" notice in these files is just an
> | attribute which informs the application that the attribute "COPYRIGHT"
> | has a value. But this value does not relicense the file itself away from
> | the MIT/X.org license. That would be the same as "relicesing" this email
> | just because it references the string. References or index data of this
> | kind cannot be copyrighted, neither in the US nor in Japan nor elsewhere
> | in the world.
> |
> |
> |>I will try to find this discussion in Debian's list archives
> |>if you're interested.
> |
> |
> | Sure. It may be possible that Adobe Japan did some tricky stuff with CID
> | fonts, but again this doesn't apply to something which has been
> | explicitly commited under the MIT/X.org license by the authors.
>
> Since the xprint-org package is anyway maintained outside the xfree86
> tree AND considering that the whole purpose of these new X.org packages
> is to split the tree as much as possible, I suggest that we can just
> stop shipping the xprint code from x.org tree, since there is absolutely
> no point in shipping it twice and maintaing it twice.
Urgh.
The X.org tree and the xprint-org are now coming from the same CVS 
repository as annouced on the xprint.mozdev.org front page. However I 
assume that both will continue to have different functionality, X.org 
version being the normal version, xprint-org being the development 
version or something like that.

Fabio: What about making Drew Parsons the maintainer of both versions 
just for the case that you can't handle it? :)

> I am pretty sure that the knowledge that Drew has on this package is far
> more deep than the one I have (possibly of other XSF maintainers).
> Meaning that his package is imho better qualified to stay where it is.
> Also resolving the issue of shipping two conflicting packages that are
> supposed to provide and do the same thing.
> Merging/re-building the package again from X.org means extra work needs
> to be done/redone/reviewed/etc.
>
> If nobody disagree with me i will start removing it within the next 2 or
> 3 days.
I disagree :)
Both packages should be seperate as both have different functionality 
(one example: One of the Xprt servers now has OpenGL support which is a 
*BIG* reason for us to drop our current Postscript hacking efforts and 
switch completely over to Xprint!)

- felix