Hi, please download this PDF file http://content.fischer.de/cbfiles/Fischer/Zulassungen/ZD_SDB_01_FHB345_F_%23SDE_%23AIP_%23V10.pdf and run the following command on it: ps2pdf14.bat V10.pdf output.pdf You'll get the following output (originally tested with 9.19 as selected above): GPL Ghostscript 9.21: Warning: EAAAAB+LucidaSans-Demi cannot be embedded because of licensing restrictions GPL Ghostscript 9.21: Warning: EAAAAA+LucidaSans cannot be embedded because of licensing restrictions GPL Ghostscript 9.21: Warning: EAAAAB+LucidaSans-Demi cannot be embedded because of licensing restrictions GPL Ghostscript 9.21: Warning: EAAAAA+LucidaSans cannot be embedded because of licensing restrictions I had a look into "...\devices\vector\whitelst.c" and found an entry for "Lucida Sans". So shouldn't the above mentioned font subsets be legally embeddable? Bye.
(In reply to Reinhard Nißl from comment #0) > Hi, > > please download this PDF file > http://content.fischer.de/cbfiles/Fischer/Zulassungen/ > ZD_SDB_01_FHB345_F_%23SDE_%23AIP_%23V10.pdf Always attach specimen files to the bug report. By the time anyone gets to look at this problem the file may have vanished. > I had a look into "...\devices\vector\whitelst.c" and found an entry for > "Lucida Sans". So shouldn't the above mentioned font subsets be legally > embeddable? Its a subset of LucidaSans, not LucidaSans, so no.
Created attachment 13587 [details] Downloaded file
Hello Ken, I don't get why a subset is not legally embeddable when the whole font is legally embeddable, at least according to the whitelist. Isn't it that the whitelist entry simply doesn't match that font name? Bye.
(In reply to Reinhard Nißl from comment #3) > I don't get why a subset is not legally embeddable when the whole font is > legally embeddable, at least according to the whitelist. Technically neither the whole font nor the subset is legally embeddable, the flags in the fonts say so. The white list is a means by which fonts can be regarded as embeddable, even when the permissions say otherwise, the default values are those taken from well known sources on the web, however.... Obviously we are *very* conservative about overriding the specific flags set by the font foundry and in particular ignoring the embedding setting as this could easily lead to litigation. > Isn't it that the whitelist entry simply doesn't match that font name? The whitelist is only used for the original font name, we cannot know whether a subset with a partially similar name is the same as the font for which permission was granted retrospectively to embed it or not. The white list only matches the exact font name, as given in the source from which we take the permission to embed it.