9:55 a.m.
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit :
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject
On what subject exactly? I'm missing all of the context here.
Is it OK if for the gust project to relicense GPL fonts under the GUST
(LPPL) license ?
We need an OpenType conversion of the ghostscript fonts so we can
forget about Type1. Those Polish TEX guys did one that looks good, but
publish the result under another (acceptable for us) license.
You see this concern on page 8 of
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf
--
Nicolas Mailhot
10 a.m.
New subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
and could not change the license... As you know, font "looks" cannot
be copyrighted in the U.S. (not sure about Europe though).
So, the main question is: can Fedora use their work? Surely, it would
be interesting to know if their relicensing business is kosher, but
that's secondary.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject
>
> On what subject exactly? I'm missing all of the context here.
Is it OK if for the gust project to relicense GPL fonts under the GUST
(LPPL) license ?
We need an OpenType conversion of the ghostscript fonts so we can
forget about Type1. Those Polish TEX guys did one that looks good, but
publish the result under another (acceptable for us) license.
You see this concern on page 8 of
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf
--
Nicolas Mailhot
10:08 a.m.
New subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 17:00, Vasile Gaburici a écrit :
I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
raw data of the URW fonts,
It's based on the raw data. That's explained in their presentations.
otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
and could not change the license...
I think so too, but IANAL. I'm sure an official Fedora notification
will make them relicense if necessary.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
10:23 a.m.
New subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici(a)gmail.com>:
I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :(
10:29 a.m.
New subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
The GPL copyright holder for the original Type 1 fonts is URW, so they
would have to send GUST notice of derived work infringement. Correct?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Dave Crossland <dave(a)lab6.com> wrote:
2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici(a)gmail.com>:
> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :(
5:39 p.m.
New subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
2008/7/24 Dave Crossland <dave(a)lab6.com>:
2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici(a)gmail.com>:
> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :(
Okay, I looked into it and it seems to be true. I couldn't find Hans
Hagen tonight, but will email him if I can't meet him tomorrow...
downloaded
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor/qag1.104bas.zip
which has /doc/fonts/tex-gyre/README-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt which says:
- - - - 8< - - - -
###########################################################################
############ The TeX Gyre Collection of Fonts ############
############ The font Adventor ############
###########################################################################
Font: TeX Gyre Adventor
Design: Herb Lubalin and Tom Carnase
Authors: Bogus\l{}aw Jackowski and Janusz M. Nowacki
Version: 1.104
Date: 29 II 2008
Downloads: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor
License:
% Copyright (URW)++, copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development.
% Cyrillic glyphs added by Valek Filippov, copyright 2001-2002.
% Vietnamese characters were added by Han The Thanh.
% Copyright 2007 for TeX Gyre extensions by B. Jackowski and J. M. Nowacki
% (on behalf of TeX Users Groups).
% This work is released under the GUST Font License
% -- see GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt.
% This work has the LPPL maintenance status "maintained".
% The Current Maintainer of this work is Bogus\l{}aw Jackowski
% and Janusz M. Nowacki.
% This work consists of the files listed
% % in the MANIFEST-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt file.
...
- - - - 8< - - - -
This line:
% Copyright (URW)++, copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development
means this project is bankrupt :-(
--
Regards,
Dave
I support www.gnuherds.org -
democratic free software jobs
6:10 p.m.
New subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
2008/7/24 Dave Crossland <dave(a)lab6.com>:
2008/7/24 Dave Crossland <dave(a)lab6.com>:
> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici(a)gmail.com>:
>> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
>> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
>
> I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :(
Okay, I looked into it and it seems to be true.
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor/qag1.104bas.zip
which has /doc/fonts/tex-gyre/README-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt which says:
In fact its even more explicit in that file:
"TeX Gyre Adventor is based on the URW Gothic L distributed under
GPL with Ghostscript."
and then
"The TeX Gyre Adventor family can be freely used and distributed
under the GUST Font License (see above) which is actually
an instance of the LaTeX Project Public License"
Madness! :-)
3:01 a.m.
New subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Since URW is the original copyright holder, the solution would be for
URW to either relicense the fonts themselves e.g. under LPPL or OFL -
whaterver FOSS license works best for fonts, or to give special
permission, i.e. an exclusive license, to GUST do so... I doubt URW
would care much either way after almost 20 years since these fonts
have GPL'd. But they need to be approached about the matter. I guess
Tom knows better what's the optimal way out in a situation like this.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Dave Crossland <dave(a)lab6.com> wrote:
2008/7/24 Dave Crossland <dave(a)lab6.com>:
> 2008/7/24 Dave Crossland <dave(a)lab6.com>:
>> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici(a)gmail.com>:
>>> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
>>> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
>>
>> I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :(
>
> Okay, I looked into it and it seems to be true.
> http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor/qag1.104bas.zip
> which has /doc/fonts/tex-gyre/README-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt which says:
In fact its even more explicit in that file:
"TeX Gyre Adventor is based on the URW Gothic L distributed under
GPL with Ghostscript."
and then
"The TeX Gyre Adventor family can be freely used and distributed
under the GUST Font License (see above) which is actually
an instance of the LaTeX Project Public License"
Madness! :-)
4:34 a.m.
New subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:01 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
Since URW is the original copyright holder, the solution would be
for
URW to either relicense the fonts themselves e.g. under LPPL or OFL -
whaterver FOSS license works best for fonts, or to give special
permission, i.e. an exclusive license, to GUST do so... I doubt URW
would care much either way after almost 20 years since these fonts
have GPL'd.
You forget that during those 20 years other people have contributed
under the assumption the whole thing was GPL. Though Artifex probably
demanded copyright assignment.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
5759
days inactive
5760
days old
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dave Crossland -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Vasile Gaburici