https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]> --- 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. 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. 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ fonts-bugs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
