https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #3)
I haven't checked texlive lately but unless the fonts are
packaged using the
Fedora packaging template they won't be available in fontconfig for non-tex
apps such as libreoffice.
There are no fontconfig.conf (nor metainfo.xml) files and the fonts are
packaged in a number of different formats.
Interestingly, I discovered the texlive-tex-gyre-math package on my system,
which contains nothing but the fonts in otf format plus their license and these
fonts are available in LibreOffice.
It does not matter if they are packaged as texlive subpackages or as
independent projects as long as the template is applied. Also, whoever
packages them needs to ship some fontconfig files that aliases the various
past names of the fonts to the new one for backwards compat. Again there are
templates to do so in fontpackages-devel.
I seem to have such rules in 30-metric-aliases.conf as well as in the
fontconfig files from David's urw-base35 fonts.
Reading
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/index_html#Licensing
they got URW to publish the fonts under their own pet license to avoid
dealing with Ghostscript licensing they didn't understood. So as long as
they rebased to that release with no ghostscript import they are ok
legal-wise (do check with spot if you feel like it, though I'm pretty sure
he'd have blocked them from TexLive during its TEX audits if there was still
a problem).
That sucks if GS added fixes over URW material, but that's how free software
works when projects disagree on licensing.
This was on 2016-11-25:
"We are on our way to the reconciling both licenses. It takes time, though..."
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.