https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos <[email protected]> --- (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. _______________________________________________ fonts-bugs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
