Summary: | License proposal to use URW fonts with special exception for another embedded files as PNG, JPEG, SVG | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Fonts | Reporter: | Coadde <coadde> |
Component: | free URW | Assignee: | Default assignee <ghostpdl-bugs> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | chris.liddell, cloos |
Priority: | P4 | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Customer: | Word Size: | --- |
Description
Coadde
2015-09-11 00:16:13 UTC
Firstly, Artifex do not own the copyright to the URW fonts they are (perhaps unsurprisingly) owned by URW. As such Artifex cannot vary the licence *at all*. More importantly, bitmap image formats such as JPEG and PNG do not include the font data and as such no licence exemption is required. (In reply to Ken Sharp from comment #1) > More importantly, bitmap image formats such as JPEG and PNG do not include > the font data and as such no licence exemption is required. The GhostPDL fonts exception is not enough to use it for SVG. You're right that bitmap image formats aren't needed license exemption, but i want use it for SVG too. (In reply to Coadde from comment #2) > (In reply to Ken Sharp from comment #1) > > More importantly, bitmap image formats such as JPEG and PNG do not include > > the font data and as such no licence exemption is required. > > The GhostPDL fonts exception is not enough to use it for SVG. > You're right that bitmap image formats aren't needed license exemption, but > i want use it for SVG too. Then I suggest you contact URW. Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl? And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX community? (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.) (In reply to James Cloos from comment #4) > Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl? > > And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX > community? > (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.) Not precisely, but the upshot is that these fonts are licenced under AGPL. However, since the copyright still resides with URW, if you want the licence varied it would still require permission from URW. So it doesn't really matter, does it ? (In reply to James Cloos from comment #4) > Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl? > > And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX > community? > (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.) We have URW++'s permission to ship the fonts under that license, yes. I really think this discussion should be considered closed. (In reply to Ken Sharp from comment #5) > (In reply to James Cloos from comment #4) > > Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl? > > > > And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX > > community? > > (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.) > > Not precisely, but the upshot is that these fonts are licenced under AGPL. > However, since the copyright still resides with URW, if you want the licence > varied it would still require permission from URW. I wrote a email for them to recommend to switch to the FSF-recommended GPL font exception [0]. Also, i opened a report about it to solve it in our distro [1]. [0]:https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2015-September/003254.html [1]:https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/797 (In reply to Chris Liddell (chrisl) from comment #6) > (In reply to James Cloos from comment #4) > > Does URW++ really license them to you under agpl? > > > > And not under the license they use for the fonts provided to the TeX > > community? > > (Which is GPL2 || LPPL.) > > We have URW++'s permission to ship the fonts under that license, yes. > > I really think this discussion should be considered closed. If Artifex have URW++'s permission to ship the fonts under FSF-recommended GPL font exception, with GPL replaced with AGPL [0], so it should be shipped under that license and consider this discussion closed. :) [0]:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException |