From petersen at redhat.com Wed Jul 2 07:46:59 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:46:59 +1000 Subject: GNU Unifont update In-Reply-To: <48303EAB.4030702@gmail.com> References: <482BB8E3.9060402@gmail.com> <57687.81.64.151.204.1211110834.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <48303EAB.4030702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080702174659.78ec8534@dhcp-0-235.bne.redhat.com> Hi Qianqian, Sorry for the late reply. Just saw this now... > The maintaining expense for both packages is not that much though. > I would be glad to maintain GNU Unifont, or show Paul how to do that > if he wants. The spec files for both packages can be almost identical. Do you still want to do this? :) It would be nice to have Unifont in Fedora. Jens From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 2 08:03:26 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:03:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: GNU Unifont update In-Reply-To: <20080702174659.78ec8534@dhcp-0-235.bne.redhat.com> References: <482BB8E3.9060402@gmail.com> <57687.81.64.151.204.1211110834.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <48303EAB.4030702@gmail.com> <20080702174659.78ec8534@dhcp-0-235.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <41614.192.54.193.59.1214985806.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mer 2 juillet 2008 09:46, Jens Petersen a ?crit : > > Hi Qianqian, > > Sorry for the late reply. Just saw this now... > >> The maintaining expense for both packages is not that much though. >> I would be glad to maintain GNU Unifont, or show Paul how to do that >> if he wants. The spec files for both packages can be almost >> identical. > > Do you still want to do this? :) > It would be nice to have Unifont in Fedora. Or more generaly to have more fonts in Fedora. It's been ages since anyone but the usual suspects packaged a new font in Fedora (and a fixed team does not scale) -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 2 11:14:44 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:14:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: GNU Unifont update In-Reply-To: <3170f42f0807020159p6b57c72ci90246f6c65bb20da@mail.gmail.com> References: <482BB8E3.9060402@gmail.com> <57687.81.64.151.204.1211110834.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <48303EAB.4030702@gmail.com> <20080702174659.78ec8534@dhcp-0-235.bne.redhat.com> <41614.192.54.193.59.1214985806.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <3170f42f0807020159p6b57c72ci90246f6c65bb20da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <26498.192.54.193.59.1214997284.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mer 2 juillet 2008 10:59, Debarshi Ray a ?crit : > >>>> The maintaining expense for both packages is not that much though. >>>> I would be glad to maintain GNU Unifont, or show Paul how to do >>>> that >>>> if he wants. The spec files for both packages can be almost >>>> identical. >>> >>> Do you still want to do this? :) >>> It would be nice to have Unifont in Fedora. >> >> Or more generaly to have more fonts in Fedora. It's been ages since >> anyone but the usual suspects packaged a new font in Fedora (and a >> fixed team does not scale) > > Is someone already doing this? If not, then I am interested. If yes, > then I can help with the review. There are lots of unclaimed fonts on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist If you have the time and interest please do not block on Unifont. Our packaging wishlist has other elements. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 2 15:13:01 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:13:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Fwd: Re: GNU Unifont update] Message-ID: <15695.192.54.193.59.1215011581.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> [FWD because Paul Hardy forrgot to subscribe] I just finished the glyphs and posted them at http://unifoundry.com/unifont.html on 20 June 2008. I then took a vacation I had planned for a long time. I was trying to get something in releasable form before my vacation, but it didn't happen. I intend to package all the sources used to build the GNU Unifont: my software, plus software that Roman Czyborra wrote originally, plus software that Luis Gonzalez Miranda wrote to convert the .hex font into a TrueType font with my modifications, in one source tree with make files and man pages. I've been wrapping this up behind the scenes and expect to finish this weekend. I would like to go through the Fedora release process, starting with just the font and then adding the whole source tree to build the font. Qianqian Fang will be able to guide me through this process (and I've been in frequent contact with him while adding the missing CJK glyphs), but review by anyone else of course would be welcome. If anyone would like updates on this, you can email me at unifoundry at unifoundry.com and I'll keep you posted on the latest developments. Thanks for your interest! Paul Hardy Le Mer 2 juillet 2008 10:59, Debarshi Ray a ?crit : > >>>> The maintaining expense for both packages is not that much though. >>>> I would be glad to maintain GNU Unifont, or show Paul how to do >>>> that >>>> if he wants. The spec files for both packages can be almost >>>> identical. >>> >>> Do you still want to do this? :) >>> It would be nice to have Unifont in Fedora. >> >> Or more generaly to have more fonts in Fedora. It's been ages since >> anyone but the usual suspects packaged a new font in Fedora (and a >> fixed team does not scale) > > Is someone already doing this? If not, then I am interested. If yes, > then I can help with the review. There are lots of unclaimed fonts on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist If you have the time and interest please do not block on Unifont. Our packaging wishlist has other elements. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 4 09:56:26 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:56:26 +0200 Subject: Fonts packaging amendment Message-ID: <1215165386.3777.6.camel@rousalka.okg> Hi, I'm proposing the following amendment: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles to our fonts packaging policy: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsPolicy (official page, broken by the wiki migration) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_packaging_policy (unofficial cleaned-up font page ; I hope someone will the right accesses picks it up) Nothing earth-shattering, just a write-up of our current unwritten rules Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 4 11:18:53 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:18:53 +0200 Subject: Debian's working on a font tarball template - please check and comment Message-ID: <1215170333.3777.11.camel@rousalka.okg> -------- Message transf?r? -------- De: Nicolas Spalinger ?: OFLB > The note maybe but zipping font files with a detached .TXT file is good > practice and should be promoted. Indeed. 100% agreed :-) I'd also highly recommend a file in the release tarball describing the chosen licensing and some kind of readme/changelog. Actually that's why the OFL is promoting the concept of a FONTLOG and provides a template. BTW, here's a proposed VCS branch and tarball template for an open font: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/foo-open-font-sources/?rev=0&sc=0 Your feedback very welcome, Cheers, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas_spalinger at sil.org Fri Jul 4 11:30:09 2008 From: nicolas_spalinger at sil.org (Nicolas Spalinger) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:30:09 +0200 Subject: Debian's working on a font tarball template - please check and comment In-Reply-To: <1215170333.3777.11.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <1215170333.3777.11.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <486E09C1.4090507@sil.org> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > -------- Message transf?r? -------- > De: Nicolas Spalinger > ?: OFLB >> The note maybe but zipping font files with a detached .TXT file is good >> practice and should be promoted. > > Indeed. 100% agreed :-) > > I'd also highly recommend a file in the release tarball describing the > chosen licensing and some kind of readme/changelog. Actually that's why > the OFL is promoting the concept of a FONTLOG and provides a template. > > BTW, here's a proposed VCS branch and tarball template for an open font: > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/foo-open-font-sources/?rev=0&sc=0 > > Your feedback very welcome, > > Cheers, Dear Nicolas (and everyone), Thanks for fwd-ing to the Fedora list :-) Let me quickly add that this is not intended to be Debian-specific at all but comes from suggestions and discussions with SIL designers, various people at the last LGM (Libre Graphics Meeting) TLM (TextLayoutMeeting) and UDS (Ubuntu Developer Summit). More like a cross-distro, cross-OS type spec actually. The purpose is to make life easier for designers/script engineers wanting to use a (D)VCS for collaborative open font design and *also* for packagers who make this work available in the distros :-) Awaiting your feedback. Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger http://scripts.sil.org http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/ https://launchpad.net/people/fonts -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lyos.gemininorezel at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 02:31:30 2008 From: lyos.gemininorezel at gmail.com (Lyos Gemini Norezel) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:31:30 -0400 Subject: Engadget, Essays1743, Isabella, Rockets, and StayPuft fonts. Message-ID: <486EDD02.7020407@gmail.com> Greetings all... I have just submitted a package with all 5 of the fonts mentioned in the subject line. The review request is listed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 This is my first package, so I am looking for a sponsor. Feedback is always appreciated. Lyos Gemini Norezel From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Jul 5 09:10:48 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:10:48 +0200 Subject: Engadget, Essays1743, Isabella, Rockets, and StayPuft fonts. In-Reply-To: <486EDD02.7020407@gmail.com> References: <486EDD02.7020407@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1215249048.23682.4.camel@rousalka.okg> Le vendredi 04 juillet 2008 ? 22:31 -0400, Lyos Gemini Norezel a ?crit : > Greetings all... > I have just submitted a package with all 5 of the fonts mentioned > in the subject line. The review request is listed here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 > This is my first package, so I am looking for a sponsor. > Feedback is always appreciated. Thanks for working on the packaging wishlist! Since we've discussed it on irc, I'll take up the review Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Jul 5 11:04:30 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:04:30 +0200 Subject: Engadget, Essays1743, Isabella, Rockets, and StayPuft fonts. In-Reply-To: <1215249048.23682.4.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <486EDD02.7020407@gmail.com> <1215249048.23682.4.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <1215255870.23682.11.camel@rousalka.okg> Le samedi 05 juillet 2008 ? 11:10 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > Le vendredi 04 juillet 2008 ? 22:31 -0400, Lyos Gemini Norezel a ?crit : > > Greetings all... > > I have just submitted a package with all 5 of the fonts mentioned > > in the subject line. The review request is listed here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 > > This is my first package, so I am looking for a sponsor. > > Feedback is always appreciated. > Since we've discussed it on irc, I'll take up the review After somes exchanges with Lyos he does not undertand our packaging setup and is not willing to spend the time to learn it (wants to orphan the fonts as soon as they are packaged). Since our review process is in part designed to filter out this kind of contributions, I must reject his packages. I regret the time spend on the review (his and mine) didn't result in a more satisfactory conclusion. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From lyos.gemininorezel at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 11:10:49 2008 From: lyos.gemininorezel at gmail.com (Lyos Gemini Norezel) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:10:49 -0400 Subject: Engadget, Essays1743, Isabella, Rockets, and StayPuft fonts. In-Reply-To: <1215255870.23682.11.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <486EDD02.7020407@gmail.com> <1215249048.23682.4.camel@rousalka.okg> <1215255870.23682.11.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <486F56B9.1050105@gmail.com> I'm not going to break half my damn system (which is highly automated), just to comply with bureaucratic bullshit. Links to files will be defunct by 8:07am EST. Lyos Gemini Norezel Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le samedi 05 juillet 2008 ? 11:10 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > >> Le vendredi 04 juillet 2008 ? 22:31 -0400, Lyos Gemini Norezel a ?crit : >> >>> Greetings all... >>> I have just submitted a package with all 5 of the fonts mentioned >>> in the subject line. The review request is listed here: >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 >>> This is my first package, so I am looking for a sponsor. >>> Feedback is always appreciated. >>> > > >> Since we've discussed it on irc, I'll take up the review >> > > After somes exchanges with Lyos he does not undertand our packaging > setup and is not willing to spend the time to learn it (wants to orphan > the fonts as soon as they are packaged). > > Since our review process is in part designed to filter out this kind of > contributions, I must reject his packages. > > I regret the time spend on the review (his and mine) didn't result in a > more satisfactory conclusion. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From petersen at redhat.com Thu Jul 10 08:06:10 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:06:10 +1000 Subject: fonts package naming guideline Message-ID: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> Nicolas brought up the point recently in a font package review that we should standardize the naming of our fonts packages to improve consistency. The proposal is to name all source packages in the form "*-fonts". If we agree on this then I think the Fonts Packaging guidelines should be updated to explicitly reflect this policy. Here is a list of our source packages that do not currently end in "-fonts": These old fonts packages should be renamed I guess: fonts-ISO8859-2 -> ISO8859-2-fonts? fonts-KOI8-R -> KOI-R-fonts? This should probably change: fonts-hebrew-fancy -> fancy-fonts? (from culmus.sf.net) thaifonts-scalable (upstream name) -> thai-scalable-fonts? The following are already in the process of disappearing from rawhide: fonts-arabic - pending removal fonts-hebrew -recent devel dead.package fonts-japanese - renamed to japanese-bitmap-fonts today A few others (*font*): efont-unicode-bdf -> unicode-bdf-fonts? (maybe better to replace with GNU Unifont?) freefont (maybe this too?) terminus-font -> terminus-fonts? 3, TeX fonts Probably TeX fonts are outside this discussion?: (tetex-fonts-hebrew, tex-fonts-hebrew, tetex-eurofont, tetex-font-cm-lgc, tetex-font-kerkis) Did I miss any? :) Jens From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 10 12:05:01 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:05:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> Message-ID: <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 10 juillet 2008 10:06, Jens Petersen a ?crit : Hi, > Nicolas brought up the point recently in a font package review that we > should standardize the naming of our fonts packages to improve > consistency. The proposal is to name all source packages in the form > "*-fonts". Actually I didn't want to push the idea just before leaving for a long vacation, but since it's on the table: 1. we've slowly been consolidating our font naming to foo-fonts packages 2. however we're still a long way from good consistency, such as the one achieved Debian and Ubuntu-side https://launchpad.net/~fonts/+packages (note I think some of their choices are not too good, for example using TTF when font formats change and indeed most modern fonts are OTF) 3. consistency is good for users, it helps them find and discover packages 4. consistency can not be achieved without deviating a little from upstream naming, since upstreams are widly inconsistent in their choices. If I had to propose a convention today that would be foundry-name-fonts (single package) foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage) Right now we're not far from it but just different enough to annoy users: 1. a few packages deviate from pure -fonts suffix 2. a lot of packages are inconsistent on the foundry bits (in particular sil fonts are packaged in many different ways) > If we agree on this then I think the Fonts Packaging guidelines should > be updated to explicitly reflect this policy. > > Here is a list of our source packages that do not currently end in > "-fonts": > > These old fonts packages should be renamed I guess: > fonts-ISO8859-2 -> ISO8859-2-fonts? > fonts-KOI8-R -> KOI-R-fonts? > > This should probably change: > fonts-hebrew-fancy -> fancy-fonts? (from culmus.sf.net) culmus-fonts-fancy (if it's a subpackage) culmus-fancy-fonts (if it's a standalone package) > thaifonts-scalable (upstream name) -> thai-scalable-fonts? thai-scalable-fonts :) > The following are already in the process of disappearing from rawhide: > > fonts-arabic - pending removal > fonts-hebrew -recent devel dead.package > fonts-japanese - renamed to japanese-bitmap-fonts today > > A few others (*font*): > efont-unicode-bdf -> unicode-bdf-fonts? (maybe better to replace > with > GNU Unifont?) gnu-uni-fonts > freefont (maybe this too?) gnu-free-fonts > terminus-font -> terminus-fonts? > > 3, TeX fonts > Probably TeX fonts are outside this discussion?: I don't do TeX. I's sure lova for a TeX expert would join the SIG and contribute to dicussions. > (tetex-fonts-hebrew, tex-fonts-hebrew, tetex-eurofont, > tetex-font-cm-lgc, tetex-font-kerkis) > > Did I miss any? :) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From mrmazda at ij.net Thu Jul 10 14:46:08 2008 From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:46:08 -0400 Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> On 2008/07/10 14:05 (GMT+0200) Nicolas Mailhot apparently typed: > If I had to propose a convention today that would be > foundry-name-fonts (single package) > foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage) Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally when attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually containing fonts. Since the results are generally sorted alphabetically, the packages actually containing fonts are scattered randomly among all the non-fonts packages. How's a person supposed to figure out what packages that contain fonts are available? And how many people actually care what foundry produced them? The right way, cross-distro- would be for all packages containing one or more fonts start 'fonts-', and all packages not containing fonts not start with 'fonts-'. e.g. fontconfig- fonts-bitmap- fonts-dejavu- fonts-freefont- fonts-ghostscript- fonts-liberation- fonts-urw- fonts-xorg-100dpi- xorg-x11-font-utils- -- "Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry." Ephesians 4:26 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 10 15:06:12 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:06:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> Message-ID: <57964.192.54.193.59.1215702372.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 10 juillet 2008 16:46, Felix Miata a ?crit : > > On 2008/07/10 14:05 (GMT+0200) Nicolas Mailhot apparently typed: > >> If I had to propose a convention today that would be > >> foundry-name-fonts (single package) >> foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage) > > Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally > when attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at > least 20 times > as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually > containing fonts. Good GUI package managers use repodata groups, either directly or indirectly (ie packagekit). Expecting a unified fonts- prefix is not workable with subpackages, short of performing deep rpm vodoo that makes the link to srpm un-obvious and confuses users in bugzilla. -- Nicolas Mailhot From mnowak at redhat.com Thu Jul 10 15:31:45 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:31:45 +0200 Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> Message-ID: <20080710153145.GA6346@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> On 10:46 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote: > Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally when > attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times > as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually > containing fonts. One could say such people should select some font category in their GUI pgk manager and then comfortably select right fonts. Or issue: yum groupinfo Fonts Just a matter of comps if the category includes non-font stuff. Michal From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 10 16:22:46 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:22:46 +0200 Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <20080710153145.GA6346@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> <20080710153145.GA6346@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1215706966.17829.2.camel@rousalka.okg> Le jeudi 10 juillet 2008 ? 17:31 +0200, Michal Nowak a ?crit : > Or issue: > > yum groupinfo Fonts > > Just a matter of comps if the category includes non-font stuff. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere, our guidelines make very clear both that fonts packages must be declared in comps and how to makez that declaration. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From mrmazda at ij.net Thu Jul 10 18:15:24 2008 From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:15:24 -0400 Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <20080710153145.GA6346@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> <20080710153145.GA6346@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <487651BC.6050407@ij.net> On 2008/07/10 17:31 (GMT+0200) Michal Nowak apparently typed: > On 10:46 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote: >> Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally when >> attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times >> as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually >> containing fonts. > One could say such people should select some font category in their > GUI pgk manager and then comfortably select right fonts. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430836 has stopped me from doing more than token new installs for quite some time, so I don't know the current state of the package selection process during installation. I don't remember anything about any package group named fonts last I looked there. As to the current state of the GUI package manager in F9, I have no idea what it looks like or can do, because starting KDE4 from KDM kills video or puts display to sleep in both KDE and all ttys ever since last updates on my Intel 845G. Try thinking like a n00b trying a distro for the first time instead of someone who has the whole system hard-coded in their brain - outside your normal box. Don't you think the first thing they'll think of is typing the word font or fonts into a search box? It's exactly what I would do, unless the word fonts was already staring me in the face. > Or issue: > yum groupinfo Fonts Sweet, but how many n00bs you think are going to know about it within a reasonable time after installation? > Just a matter of comps if the category includes non-font stuff. I don't understand your statement "matter of comps". -- "Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry." Ephesians 4:26 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ From mnowak at redhat.com Thu Jul 10 18:45:11 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:45:11 +0200 Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <487651BC.6050407@ij.net> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> <20080710153145.GA6346@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <487651BC.6050407@ij.net> Message-ID: <20080710184511.GA6786@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> On 14:15 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote: > As to the current state of the GUI package manager in F9, I have no idea what > it looks like or can do, because starting KDE4 from KDM kills video or puts > display to sleep in both KDE and all ttys ever since last updates on my Intel > 845G. gpk-application The first fist-time-user will do is to click on "Font". In case it works (s)he will get list of font. > I don't understand your statement "matter of comps". Nicolas pointed it in this tread already. Looks like a beginning of pointless flame, I am not going to go on in this thread. Michal From mrmazda at ij.net Thu Jul 10 19:29:25 2008 From: mrmazda at ij.net (Felix Miata) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:29:25 -0400 Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <20080710184511.GA6786@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> <20080710153145.GA6346@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <487651BC.6050407@ij.net> <20080710184511.GA6786@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <48766315.5020508@ij.net> On 2008/07/10 20:45 (GMT+0200) Michal Nowak apparently typed: > On 14:15 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote: >> I don't understand your statement "matter of comps". > Nicolas pointed it in this tread already. I saw what he wrote before I wrote. I don't understand his response either. What is "matter of comps"? -- "Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry." Ephesians 4:26 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ From mnowak at redhat.com Fri Jul 11 06:24:36 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:24:36 +0200 Subject: fonts package naming guideline In-Reply-To: <48766315.5020508@ij.net> References: <4875C2F2.1000402@redhat.com> <50789.192.54.193.59.1215691501.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <487620B0.8020900@ij.net> <20080710153145.GA6346@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <487651BC.6050407@ij.net> <20080710184511.GA6786@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <48766315.5020508@ij.net> Message-ID: <20080711062436.GA10052@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> On 15:29 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote: > I saw what he wrote before I wrote. I don't understand his response either. > What is "matter of comps"? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CompsXml#Fonts It originaly should mean that we have to deal in good way with comps.xml to be sure our font is placed in right category. Open comps.xml, seeing is beliveing. Michal From cchance at redhat.com Sun Jul 13 06:33:00 2008 From: cchance at redhat.com (Caius Chance) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: liberation-fonts 1.04 released. Message-ID: <30634228.561215930595985.JavaMail.cchance@cavalier> Hi, liberation-fonts version 1.04 has been released: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liberation-fonts/liberation-fonts-1.04.tar.gz https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liberation-fonts/liberation-fonts-1.04.zip Thank you for your support. Please feel free to submit bug reports or feature requests to this Trac or Red Hat Bugzilla. Best Regards, Caius. -- Caius Carlos Chance < cchance AT redhat DOT com > Red Hat APAC | http://apac.redhat.com/disclaimer/ From cchance at redhat.com Sun Jul 13 23:42:58 2008 From: cchance at redhat.com (Caius Chance) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: liberation-fonts 1.04 released. In-Reply-To: <20194674.61215991965125.JavaMail.cchance@sashimi.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <15417190.81215992575141.JavaMail.cchance@sashimi.bne.redhat.com> Hi Dave, Thank you very much for your email. I do appreciate your concern on this font set. IMHO, section 1b requires hardware manufacturer to provide source of these fonts (or modified edition) that they included in their hardware products, as well as to provide the owner of those hardware products to modify and reinstall the reinstalled copy. This is actually an extra protection to consumers when some hardware manufacturers might utilize open sources software (in this case, fonts) but trying to stay away from trouble by stating that any hacking activities on their products will void the warranty. Personally, despite of differences from original text of GPL, this exception is an enhancement instead of regression to human society. As my personal understanding, Red Hat is the intelligent property owner of Liberation Fonts (Ascender is original manufacturer FYI). It should not be recognized as breakage of GPL clauses because RH is the initial party who release the fonts from commercial to "open source/free" for the public. It is more appropriate to define the license as "a GPL based license with customized modification for better user/developer protections on font-form software" rather than a broken GPL. Yes, personally I would say this is not a GPL, nor a broken GPL, but more like a new license. Hence, it is highly recommended for anyone who is going to utilize Liberation Fonts thoughtfully analysis all contents on both COPYING and License.txt in advance, just like read a brand new license. Hope this info helps. BTW, Debian package maintainers have approved Liberation Fonts as valid for inclusion in version 1.04.beta2 already. Wish you enjoyable developing. Best Regards, Caius. ----- "Dave Crossland" ???????????? > 2008/7/13 Caius Chance : > > > > liberation-fonts version 1.04 has been released: > > Section 1b of the license.txt remains; this suggests that the fonts > are unredistributable under GPL Section 7's "liberty or death" clause > :-( > > Dave -- Caius Carlos Chance < cchance AT redhat DOT com > Red Hat APAC | http://apac.redhat.com/disclaimer/ From mnowak at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 11:36:35 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:36:35 +0200 Subject: New front: khmeros-fonts Message-ID: <20080715113635.GB12956@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Greetingz list! New fonts to fedora just arrived: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/pending/khmeros-fonts-5.0-3.fc9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/pending/khmeros-fonts-5.0-3.fc8 """ The Khmer OS fonts include Khmer and Latin alphabets, and they have equivalent sizes for Khmer and English alphabets, so that when texts mix both it is not necessary to have different point sizes for the text in each language. """ Thanks a lot for big help, Nicolas! Michal From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Jul 15 12:15:50 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:15:50 +0200 Subject: New front: khmeros-fonts In-Reply-To: <20080715113635.GB12956@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <20080715113635.GB12956@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1216124150.11520.14.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mardi 15 juillet 2008 ? 13:36 +0200, Michal Nowak a ?crit : > Greetingz list! > > New fonts to fedora just arrived: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/pending/khmeros-fonts-5.0-3.fc9 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/pending/khmeros-fonts-5.0-3.fc8 > > """ > The Khmer OS fonts include Khmer and Latin alphabets, and they have equivalent > sizes for Khmer and English alphabets, so that when texts mix both it is not > necessary to have different point sizes for the text in each language. > """ > > Thanks a lot for big help, Nicolas! No problem. I must say it's always a pleasure to work with motivated packagers, and you had the good taste to select a much needed font set in the wishlist (not the easiest to package, congratulation). You probably want to talk with Jens Petersen (juhp) to check if the Internationalization project does not want some of those fonts on by default distro-wide BTW. Please continue packaging fonts! I'd probably work a little more on the package descriptions, so not two of them are 100% the same, and add a few fontconfig rules in the lot, but I'm a perfectionnist (in case you've not noticed yet). Lastly (and this applies to other new packagers) you can drop all the blue frames from a font wiki page when the font is done and published. The blue frames are only there as redaction help, so you don't need to keep them long-term. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 13:56:15 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:56:15 +0300 Subject: [Fontconfig] Is code point substitution inside the same font possible with fontconfing? In-Reply-To: <1216501737.4624.0.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <1216501737.4624.0.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: Speaking of the type-1 fonts, I see there is a project to update them to newer formats:[http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/freefont/], which also has a wikipedia page at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_UCS_Outline_Fonts]. But it looks like the project ran out of steam. Am I guessing correctly? On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le samedi 19 juillet 2008 ? 23:00 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : >> Briefly, I want to alter the code point of a request before passing it >> to the font library (freetype2 in my case). The recoding that needs to >> happen is from U+021A/B to U+162/3. This is quite useful for new >> Romanian documents rendered with old/free Type-1 fonts (details here: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Tasks/Ro_fonts#Type-1_fonts_need_an_additional_mapping_from_U.2B021A.2FB_to_U.2B162.2F3) > > See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:L10N/Tasks/Ro_fonts > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 14:59:51 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:59:51 +0300 Subject: Adobe FDK under wine? Or similar FOSS tool? Message-ID: Editing OpenType feature tables with fontforge is a big PITA. Adding a locl table to Linux Libertine, see [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Tasks/Ro_fonts#Linux_Libertine], took me three hours (testing included). And that just for the regular font. Parts of the table are (or rather should be) common between files, but fontforge doesn't support that, so I have to start over for the bold and italic! This presentation [http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/slye_lisbon-05.pdf] should give you an idea what the right tool for the job is like. The good news is that Adobe FDK is free (as in beer). The bad news is that Adobe makes only Win32 and OS X versions of it. Does anyone here have any experience with it? Does it work in wine? Also, does anyone know any FOSS tool that uses Adobe feature files or similar text based files (please not that thingie that converts fonts to XML). Fontforge is supposed to be able to import fea files, but currently it's broken (does nothing); maintainers have been notified... -- Vasile From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 15:27:35 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:27:35 +0300 Subject: Adobe FDK under wine? Or similar FOSS tool? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: P.S.: here is a sample feature file for Adobe Minion Pro (2004) made public by Adobe: http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?233@@.3bb58628!enclosure=.3bb58629 On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > Editing OpenType feature tables with fontforge is a big PITA. Adding a > locl table to Linux Libertine, see > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Tasks/Ro_fonts#Linux_Libertine], > took me three hours (testing included). And that just for the regular > font. Parts of the table are (or rather should be) common between > files, but fontforge doesn't support that, so I have to start over for > the bold and italic! > > This presentation > [http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/slye_lisbon-05.pdf] > should give you an idea what the right tool for the job is like. The > good news is that Adobe FDK is free (as in beer). The bad news is that > Adobe makes only Win32 and OS X versions of it. Does anyone here have > any experience with it? Does it work in wine? > > Also, does anyone know any FOSS tool that uses Adobe feature files or > similar text based files (please not that thingie that converts fonts > to XML). Fontforge is supposed to be able to import fea files, but > currently it's broken (does nothing); maintainers have been > notified... > > -- Vasile > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Jul 20 15:49:20 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:49:20 +0200 Subject: [Fontconfig] Is code point substitution inside the same font possible with fontconfing? In-Reply-To: References: <1216501737.4624.0.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <1216568960.6585.4.camel@rousalka.okg> Le dimanche 20 juillet 2008 ? 16:56 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > Speaking of the type-1 fonts, I see there is a project to update them > to newer formats:[http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/freefont/], > which also has a wikipedia page at > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_UCS_Outline_Fonts]. But it looks > like the project ran out of steam. Am I guessing correctly? It has been in Fedora for a long time and a lot of people do not like the quality of freefonts. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 16:10:30 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:10:30 +0300 Subject: Adobe FDK under wine? Or similar FOSS tool? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think I found the only GPL'd alternative: otcomp (OpenType COMPiler) by Rogier van Dalen [http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~slam/fonts/otcomp.html]. It has been used to compile the (proposed, but not yet packaged) Legendum font. The syntax of the .ot (otcomp source) files is very similar to Adobe's .fea. But the compiler hasn't been maintained for 5 years, so it doesn't compile on F9. Did anyone use this tool? On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > P.S.: here is a sample feature file for Adobe Minion Pro (2004) made > public by Adobe: > http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?233@@.3bb58628!enclosure=.3bb58629 > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> Editing OpenType feature tables with fontforge is a big PITA. Adding a >> locl table to Linux Libertine, see >> [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Tasks/Ro_fonts#Linux_Libertine], >> took me three hours (testing included). And that just for the regular >> font. Parts of the table are (or rather should be) common between >> files, but fontforge doesn't support that, so I have to start over for >> the bold and italic! >> >> This presentation >> [http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/slye_lisbon-05.pdf] >> should give you an idea what the right tool for the job is like. The >> good news is that Adobe FDK is free (as in beer). The bad news is that >> Adobe makes only Win32 and OS X versions of it. Does anyone here have >> any experience with it? Does it work in wine? >> >> Also, does anyone know any FOSS tool that uses Adobe feature files or >> similar text based files (please not that thingie that converts fonts >> to XML). Fontforge is supposed to be able to import fea files, but >> currently it's broken (does nothing); maintainers have been >> notified... >> >> -- Vasile >> > From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 17:13:32 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:13:32 +0300 Subject: I tested Legendum and Garogier Message-ID: Including them in Fedora would be a bad idea. They lack plenty of accented glyphs. Since the fonts are unmaintained, they aren't likely to be fixed upstream. Legendum has two flavors: a "legacy" one, which has some accented glyphs, but not enough, and a the "non-legacy" which doesn't have any. The "legacy" version has been generated from the "non-legacy" one by a tool (otlegacy part of otcomp). To my eyes some of the accents aren't positioned optimally. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Jul 20 17:50:35 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:50:35 +0200 Subject: I tested Legendum and Garogier In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1216576235.7626.22.camel@rousalka.okg> Le dimanche 20 juillet 2008 ? 20:13 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > Including them in Fedora would be a bad idea. They lack plenty of > accented glyphs. News at 11, fonts with good Unicode coverage and a correct license are very few. > Since the fonts are unmaintained, they aren't likely > to be fixed upstream. But their license means anyone, not just the author can work on them (ie romanians can fix romanian glyphs for a start). Which means publishing them can incite people to work on them instead of wasting their time with gratis non-modifiable fonts. If the free/open font scene was striving Red Hat needn't have shelled a lot of money to a closed foundry like Ascender. Or the GNOME Foundation needn't have done the same with Bitstream for Vera. Experience shows it is very possible to extend a font with little coverage to more than decent one but it requires making a lot of noise around unfinished font cores with correct licensing to get someone interested. And you don't get there via traditionnal ivory tower isolated font designer workflow. Teams was released in 2000 by TopTeam. It took 8 years before someone picked it up and started updating it (Edrip). Have Debian (and other distributions, sadly Fedora not included) wasted their time by publishing Teams for 8 years in its poor state? If they hadn't I strongly suspect Edrip would not have happened. We're seeding our future. Those things take time, a lot of time. And the future will happen faster if people stop putting their heads in the sand, wasting time on proprietary fonts or font tools, and get to work. During this year's LGM a concerted effort created a new nicely licensed font from an old fossilizing one in a few days. Just a few years ago this would have been complete science fiction. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 21:48:46 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:48:46 +0300 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... Message-ID: I've found CFF OpenType versions of the ghostscript URW fonts. AFAICT, they are well done: have kerning pairs (using the correct 'kern' feature for CFF files), has ligatures etc. They also fix the missing mappings for Romanian (no locl table yet...). The only troublesome point may that the author of the conversion seems to want to remain anonymous. The license of the fonts is still GPL. Here is the copyright notice that accompanies them: Copyright of the contents of OpenType fonts package ------------------------------------------------------- The upstream sources of this package are available at ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/ghost/gnu/fonts/gnu-gs-fonts-std-6.0.tar.gz This file is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License. The copyright of each font is included in the fonts files as a comment near the start of each file. The OTF font files themselves have the original URW copyright. Does anyone have a problem shipping these with Fedora? Package (as found) link: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/Urw%20Gnu%20Opentype.zip From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Jul 20 22:15:28 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:15:28 +0200 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 ? 00:48 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > I've found CFF OpenType versions of the ghostscript URW fonts. AFAICT, > they are well done: have kerning pairs (using the correct 'kern' > feature for CFF files), has ligatures etc. They also fix the missing > mappings for Romanian (no locl table yet...). The only troublesome > point may that the author of the conversion seems to want to remain > anonymous. The license of the fonts is still GPL. You need to trace this version to its ultimate source, talk with fedora-legal (or spot) and convince the current package maintainer to switch font sources -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 05:55:58 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:55:58 +0300 Subject: Fwd: [Fontforge-devel] Cannot import GSUB .fea file In-Reply-To: <1216612457.1819.14.camel@lynch> References: <1216612457.1819.14.camel@lynch> Message-ID: The 2nd patch attached here may of interest to anyone that is working on adding locl tags. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: George Williams Date: Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [Fontforge-devel] Cannot import GSUB .fea file To: gaburici at cs.umd.edu Cc: fontforge-devel at lists.sourceforge.net On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 17:35, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > I exported a GSUB table to a .fea file and edited it there. But > importing back doesn't work. When I click on the "Import" right above > "Save Feature File" nothing happens. That's not what import is supposed to do. It should not have been enabled then. Here's a patch to fix it. > I guess a dialog box should pop up... Only when it can actually import something. Which it can't here. > BTW, this is the only reasonable alternative to mindlessly clicking on > each table when a new language is added (the font is Linux Libertine, > so it has 20 or so tables). Ah, good point. Here's another patch to add a language to all selected lookups with a given script. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: import.patch.bz2 Type: application/x-bzip2 Size: 1253 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: addlang.patch.bz2 Type: application/x-bzip2 Size: 4044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 06:19:17 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:19:17 +0300 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: I suspect the person that did the work used his employers' (very) non-free software to do the job, and said person is probably at risk of getting fired if found out. But who says we cannot use the result if it is GPL'd. Furthermore, the modification dates of the files inside the archive indicates that this happened 5 years ago, so it may be really hard to trace who did it. Also, in my enthusiasm I omitted the fact that these fonts are based on the ghostscript 6.0 fonts, before Cyrillic glyphs were added. E.g., Nimbus Roman Regular's PS Core is version 1.05, not 1.06. The Cyrillic glyphs need to be merged in. Probably the cleanest thing to do is redo the conversion starting with the current version of gs-fonts (8.11). We can use the "goose" version as model for what the result should look like (kerning, ligatures etc.) Any experts here that can help with that? On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 ? 00:48 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : >> I've found CFF OpenType versions of the ghostscript URW fonts. AFAICT, >> they are well done: have kerning pairs (using the correct 'kern' >> feature for CFF files), has ligatures etc. They also fix the missing >> mappings for Romanian (no locl table yet...). The only troublesome >> point may that the author of the conversion seems to want to remain >> anonymous. The license of the fonts is still GPL. > > You need to trace this version to its ultimate source, talk with > fedora-legal (or spot) and convince the current package maintainer to > switch font sources > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Jul 21 09:16:14 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:16:14 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: Re: the ivory tower and the bazaar] Message-ID: <1216631774.14118.19.camel@rousalka.okg> -------- Message transf?r? -------- De: Nicolas Mailhot ?: Gustavo Ferreira Sujet: Re: the ivory tower and the bazaar Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:11:45 +0200 Le dimanche 20 juillet 2008 ? 20:38 -0300, Gustavo Ferreira a ?crit : > i have yet to see one good, original, well-made typeface developed in > the bazaar way. can you name one? You assume I want original. While original is good it's very low in my priorities. Ivory tower design is very good at producing pretty fonts limited to basic latin that are effectively unuseable in an internationalized world. Well, I don't care about this kind of pureblood. I'll take a good unexhalted workhorse over it any day (and that's a generalisation, not every ivory tower font is so limited but most of them are). Give me gcc's, not proprietary compilers that look great in benchmarks but can only do what their original authors cared about. Pretending fonts can not be produced collectively is pure ubris. Their art is not more elevated than Renaissance paintings where offloading a large part of the work to apprentices was common. It's not more elevated than all the cathedrals that were produced by large teams over several lifetimes. And local designers are better at designing their glyphs than someone in an ivory tower the other side of the world anyway. And yes open collective design is not there yet. But it's progressing and I've no doubt he'll suprise a lot of people in a few years. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Jul 21 09:17:30 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:17:30 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] Message-ID: <1216631850.14118.20.camel@rousalka.okg> -------- Message transf?r? -------- De: Gustavo Ferreira ?: fedora-fonts-list-request Sujet: the ivory tower and the bazaar Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:38:59 -0300 On Jul 20, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > If the free/open font scene was striving Red Hat needn't have > shelled a > lot of money to a closed foundry like Ascender. Or the GNOME > Foundation > needn't have done the same with Bitstream for Vera. Experience > shows it > is very possible to extend a font with little coverage to more than > decent one but it requires making a lot of noise around unfinished > font > cores with correct licensing to get someone interested. And you don't > get there via traditionnal ivory tower isolated font designer > workflow. i have yet to see one good, original, well-made typeface developed in the bazaar way. can you name one? also, please don't be ungrateful to the "isolated ivory-tower designer workflow", since it has produced the best foss-fonts out there. i challenge the "free & open font crowd" to promote free/open fonts on the basis of their typographic quality, without appealing to below- the-belt demonization of "proprietary designers" and "proprietary tools". > Teams was released in 2000 by TopTeam. It took 8 years before someone > picked it up and started updating it (Edrip). Have Debian (and other > distributions, sadly Fedora not included) wasted their time by > publishing Teams for 8 years in its poor state? If they hadn't I > strongly suspect Edrip would not have happened. > > We're seeding our future. Those things take time, a lot of time. > And the > future will happen faster if people stop putting their heads in the > sand, wasting time on proprietary fonts or font tools, and get to > work. > During this year's LGM a concerted effort created a new nicely > licensed > font from an old fossilizing one in a few days. Just a few years ago > this would have been complete science fiction. do you mean NotCourier Sans? i don't dislike the result, but let's be honest about it -- chopping off serifs from an existing font is not really type-design... cheers, - gustavo. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Jul 21 12:59:14 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:59:14 +0200 Subject: Fedora font inclusion timeline Message-ID: <1216645154.26607.2.camel@rousalka.okg> Hi, For those interested by a little history, I've added a timeline in the wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history Feel free to correct/complete it. As anyone can check until F9 we weren't very dynamic and spent our time renaming old packages. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From benlaenen at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 12:53:37 2008 From: benlaenen at gmail.com (Ben Laenen) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:53:37 +0200 Subject: Adobe FDK under wine? Or similar FOSS tool? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200807211453.37419.benlaenen@gmail.com> On Sunday 20 July 2008, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > Editing OpenType feature tables with fontforge is a big PITA. Adding > a locl table to Linux Libertine, see > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Tasks/Ro_fonts#Linux_Libertine], > took me three hours (testing included). And that just for the regular > font. Parts of the table are (or rather should be) common between > files, but fontforge doesn't support that, so I have to start over > for the bold and italic! I guess you just need to be used to how FontForge handles OpenType? I don't think it looks that hard to do. It used to be much harder as well before George completely redid OpenType handling :-). But true, you need to be familiar with lookup tables, while I guess you just want to be able to select a glyph, and click some buttons saying: I want feature "locl" for languages "latn{ROM}" and "latn{MOL}" and substitute it with glyph X. And actually, it already works like that, if you made the lookups and lookup subtables. It only makes sense to put these together in tables like that. If you have a list of glyphs you substitute in certain languages and suddenly think you need one other language you don't have to change all previous lookups, just change the language list in the data. btw, there is a "Copy lookup data" entry in the FontForge "edit" menu that could ease the pain having to redo everything for each font. Greetings Ben From vgaburici at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 11:30:36 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:30:36 +0300 Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] In-Reply-To: References: <1216631850.14118.20.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: Stupid gmail doesn't reply to all recipients by default, so see below. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vasile Gaburici Subject: Re: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] They say a picture is worth a thousand words. [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/linux-fonts.png] On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > -------- Message transf?r? -------- > De: Gustavo Ferreira > ?: fedora-fonts-list-request > Sujet: the ivory tower and the bazaar > Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:38:59 -0300 > > On Jul 20, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> If the free/open font scene was striving Red Hat needn't have >> shelled a >> lot of money to a closed foundry like Ascender. Or the GNOME >> Foundation >> needn't have done the same with Bitstream for Vera. Experience >> shows it >> is very possible to extend a font with little coverage to more than >> decent one but it requires making a lot of noise around unfinished >> font >> cores with correct licensing to get someone interested. And you don't >> get there via traditionnal ivory tower isolated font designer >> workflow. > > i have yet to see one good, original, well-made typeface developed in > the bazaar way. can you name one? > > also, please don't be ungrateful to the "isolated ivory-tower > designer workflow", since it has produced the best foss-fonts out there. > > i challenge the "free & open font crowd" to promote free/open fonts > on the basis of their typographic quality, without appealing to below- > the-belt demonization of "proprietary designers" and "proprietary > tools". > >> Teams was released in 2000 by TopTeam. It took 8 years before someone >> picked it up and started updating it (Edrip). Have Debian (and other >> distributions, sadly Fedora not included) wasted their time by >> publishing Teams for 8 years in its poor state? If they hadn't I >> strongly suspect Edrip would not have happened. >> >> We're seeding our future. Those things take time, a lot of time. >> And the >> future will happen faster if people stop putting their heads in the >> sand, wasting time on proprietary fonts or font tools, and get to >> work. > >> During this year's LGM a concerted effort created a new nicely >> licensed >> font from an old fossilizing one in a few days. Just a few years ago >> this would have been complete science fiction. > > do you mean NotCourier Sans? i don't dislike the result, but let's be > honest about it -- chopping off serifs from an existing font is not > really type-design... > > cheers, > - gustavo. > > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From mnowak at redhat.com Tue Jul 22 13:06:14 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] In-Reply-To: References: <1216631850.14118.20.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <20080722130614.GA8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> On 14:30 Tue 22 Jul , Vasile Gaburici wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Vasile Gaburici > Subject: Re: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] > > They say a picture is worth a thousand words. > [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/linux-fonts.png] I am sorry for my ignorance but what does the thousand-word-picture actually said? From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Jul 22 13:20:48 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:20:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] In-Reply-To: <20080722130614.GA8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <1216631850.14118.20.camel@rousalka.okg> <20080722130614.GA8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <45247.192.54.193.59.1216732848.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mar 22 juillet 2008 15:06, Michal Nowak a ?crit : > > On 14:30 Tue 22 Jul , Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Vasile Gaburici >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] >> >> They say a picture is worth a thousand words. >> [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/linux-fonts.png] > > I am sorry for my ignorance but what does the thousand-word-picture > actually said? I guess it said that if you were willing to shell a lot of $$$, you could buy proprietary font sets that let you write the same basic latin text in lots of slightly different ways, while being unable to use any language that needed more that the 26 basic latin letters. Of course not everyone has the same priorities. -- Nicolas Mailhot From vgaburici at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 13:50:41 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:50:41 +0300 Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] In-Reply-To: <45247.192.54.193.59.1216732848.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1216631850.14118.20.camel@rousalka.okg> <20080722130614.GA8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <45247.192.54.193.59.1216732848.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: Depends how international you want it! Adobe Pro fonts have many glyphs, especially the newer fonts. Comparing the number of glyphs: Fedora fonts ~~~~~~~~~~~~ DejaVu Serif Book: 2885 DejaVu Sans Book: 5270 DejaVu Sans Mono Book: 3020 Liberation Serif Regular: 668 Liberation Sans Regular: 675 Liberation Mono Regular: 670 Linux Libertine Regular: 2388 Charis SIL Regular: 3289 Doulos SIL Regular: 3288 Gentium Regular: 1699 The URW fonts I got in OpenType have 300 or so glyphs. The type-1 Fedora ships, which have Cyrillic but broken Romanian, have around 500. Adobe Pro ~~~~~~~~~ Adobe Caslon Pro Regular: 801 Minion Pro Regular: 1668 Arno Pro Regular: 2846 Garamond Premier Pro Regular: 2735 Myriad Pro Regular: 846 Courier Std Medium: 374 [I don't have any Pro monospaced] MS XP + EU Expansion Font Update ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Arial Regular: 1680 Times New Roman Regular: 1680 Verdana Regular: 913 Microsoft Sans Serif Regular: 2259 Courier New Regular: 1318 (this actullay lacks Romanian glyphs, it wasn't updated) MS Vista (actually these are from PPT Viewer 2k7, I don't have Vista) ~~~~~~~~ Cambria Bold: 979 [note: fontmatrix cannot read ttc files, like the Cambria Regular + Math] Constantia Regular: 994 Calibri Regular: 1121 Corbel Regular: 987 Candara Regular: 966 Consolas Regular: 709 MS Office 2k3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Palatino Linotype Regular: 1328 Tahoma Regular: 2036 So, DejaVu Sans may win the number of glyphs contest, but I wouldn't print stuff in DejaVu. Linux Libertine is much better in that respect. Liberation is somewhere in between. What Linux really needs is a sans version of Libertine! If I were Redhat management I'd pay Philipp Poll or the SIL fokes instead of Ascender Corp! Btw, Charis SIL is okay for some jobs, but it is a slab serif. Btw, I have no need to write Chinese or Arabic, but there commercial fonts for those too! On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Mar 22 juillet 2008 15:06, Michal Nowak a ?crit : >> >> On 14:30 Tue 22 Jul , Vasile Gaburici wrote: >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Vasile Gaburici >>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] >>> >>> They say a picture is worth a thousand words. >>> [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/linux-fonts.png] >> >> I am sorry for my ignorance but what does the thousand-word-picture >> actually said? > > I guess it said that if you were willing to shell a lot of $$$, you > could buy proprietary font sets that let you write the same basic > latin text in lots of slightly different ways, while being unable to > use any language that needed more that the 26 basic latin letters. > > Of course not everyone has the same priorities. > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Jul 22 14:05:11 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:05:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar] In-Reply-To: References: <1216631850.14118.20.camel@rousalka.okg> <20080722130614.GA8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <45247.192.54.193.59.1216732848.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <53161.192.54.193.59.1216735511.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mar 22 juillet 2008 15:50, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > Depends how international you want it! Adobe Pro fonts have many > glyphs, especially the newer fonts. Comparing the number of glyphs: And the point is, if you can buy the latest version of those fonts, you don't need the workarounds for older fonts. And if you can't afford to update to the latest proprietary version, bragging about its new coverage is sort of futile. -- Nicolas Mailhot From vgaburici at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 14:16:06 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:16:06 +0300 Subject: Call for OpenType fonts! [Was: Re: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar]] Message-ID: Since we are debating the state of Fedora fonts, I'd also like to add that Fedora should ship as many OpenType fonts as possible. Why? Because it (finally!) includes a decent bundle of TeX (texlive), which contains XeTeX -- a version of TeX that can use advanced OpenType features directly. XeTeX is still a bit inferior to pdftex in some respects (no microtypography), but is far easier to use. Yeah, OOo should get OpenType support too, but I personally don't care much about it. FYI: Because Fedora up to release 8 kept including the obsolete tetex, which I had to patch manually many times, I skipped all Fedoras between 5 and 9! Anything in between would have been a downgrade for me after I started manually adding up to date packages to tetex. And no, I could not just add them locally because they conflicted with the bundled packages in complex ways, so the old ones had to be deleted -- so no yum update tetex for me. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Jul 22 14:40:36 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:40:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Call for OpenType fonts! [Was: Re: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar]] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mar 22 juillet 2008 16:16, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > > Since we are debating the state of Fedora fonts, I'd also like to add > that Fedora should ship as many OpenType fonts as possible. Bear in mind that OpenType can mean TTF fonts with OpenType features nowadays. Other than that, I fully agree with you, but that means recruiting new font packagers. At the rate we're going now, it's going to take many releases to process http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist let alone work on fonts not listed there. (You can easily check this rate by looking at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history Since I'm reaching the limits on the number of packages I can maintain in my spare time, a realistic future rate all other things being equal should be computed by removing all the packages I've done in the past from the lists). -- Nicolas Mailhot From simos.lists at googlemail.com Tue Jul 22 16:40:03 2008 From: simos.lists at googlemail.com (Simos Xenitellis) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:40:03 +0100 Subject: Call for OpenType fonts! [Was: Re: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar]] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <598e9210807220940v6907d13bqea91e860a393a2ac@mail.gmail.com> Regarding OpenOffice.org and OpenType support, here is a recent thread at the UX (User Experience) mailing list on features to include in OpenOffice.org Writer 3.1, http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1890 A few people mentioned OpenType support, http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1894 http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1899 The way to go with OOo and OpenType support, is to have users request it, at the appropriate forums. Simos On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > Since we are debating the state of Fedora fonts, I'd also like to add > that Fedora should ship as many OpenType fonts as possible. Why? > Because it (finally!) includes a decent bundle of TeX (texlive), which > contains XeTeX -- a version of TeX that can use advanced OpenType > features directly. XeTeX is still a bit inferior to pdftex in some > respects (no microtypography), but is far easier to use. Yeah, OOo > should get OpenType support too, but I personally don't care much > about it. > > FYI: Because Fedora up to release 8 kept including the obsolete tetex, > which I had to patch manually many times, I skipped all Fedoras > between 5 and 9! Anything in between would have been a downgrade for > me after I started manually adding up to date packages to tetex. And > no, I could not just add them locally because they conflicted with the > bundled packages in complex ways, so the old ones had to be deleted -- > so no yum update tetex for me. > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > From vgaburici at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 16:40:16 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:40:16 +0300 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: I've got some expert comments on the fonts. There are some issues with the conversion... Details here: http://www.typophile.com/node/47578 On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > I suspect the person that did the work used his employers' (very) > non-free software to do the job, and said person is probably at risk > of getting fired if found out. But who says we cannot use the result > if it is GPL'd. Furthermore, the modification dates of the files > inside the archive indicates that this happened 5 years ago, so it may > be really hard to trace who did it. > > Also, in my enthusiasm I omitted the fact that these fonts are based > on the ghostscript 6.0 fonts, before Cyrillic glyphs were added. E.g., > Nimbus Roman Regular's PS Core is version 1.05, not 1.06. The Cyrillic > glyphs need to be merged in. > > Probably the cleanest thing to do is redo the conversion starting with > the current version of gs-fonts (8.11). We can use the "goose" version > as model for what the result should look like (kerning, ligatures > etc.) Any experts here that can help with that? > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: >> Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 ? 00:48 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : >>> I've found CFF OpenType versions of the ghostscript URW fonts. AFAICT, >>> they are well done: have kerning pairs (using the correct 'kern' >>> feature for CFF files), has ligatures etc. They also fix the missing >>> mappings for Romanian (no locl table yet...). The only troublesome >>> point may that the author of the conversion seems to want to remain >>> anonymous. The license of the fonts is still GPL. >> >> You need to trace this version to its ultimate source, talk with >> fedora-legal (or spot) and convince the current package maintainer to >> switch font sources >> >> -- >> Nicolas Mailhot >> > From grilo at centroin.com.br Tue Jul 22 17:04:36 2008 From: grilo at centroin.com.br (Gustavo Ferreira) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:04:36 -0300 Subject: packager for liberation sans derivative needed (was: Re: Call for OpenType fonts!) In-Reply-To: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Mar 22 juillet 2008 16:16, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : >> >> Since we are debating the state of Fedora fonts, I'd also like to add >> that Fedora should ship as many OpenType fonts as possible. > > (...) > > Other than that, I fully agree with you, but that means recruiting new > font packagers. At the rate we're going now, it's going to take many > releases to process > i have worked on a derivative version of liberation sans for a client (a public university in brazil). i have made several changes to the design of the existing fonts (it is closer to univers and akzidenz grotesk), and created new ultralight and extrabold weights as well as small caps, proportional numbers and case-sensitive punctuation for the text fonts (but no greek or cyrillic). the university will be releasing their new visual identity soon, along with the fonts. i plan to release an extended version* of the family (under a different name) in september/october through my foundry. * including condensed and extended fonts for use in newspapers and magazines [the fonts were designed in the 'ivory tower' way, with mostly proprietary software (macosx, fontlab, superpolator).] i would be happy if these fonts could end up in linux distros. if anyone is interested in testing the fonts on linux and taking care of the packaging, please drop me a line. regards, - gustavo. ps: the fonts are in opentype cff format. From vgaburici at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 17:58:26 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:58:26 +0300 Subject: Call for OpenType fonts! [Was: Re: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar]] In-Reply-To: <598e9210807220940v6907d13bqea91e860a393a2ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <598e9210807220940v6907d13bqea91e860a393a2ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Most people using OOo probably don't have clue what features OpenType provides, mostly because they've only seen Arial and Times New Roman. So I don't expect widespread requests from the userbase... Btw, is there a way to vote for feature requests, or do we have to spam them on the forums? On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > Regarding OpenOffice.org and OpenType support, here is a recent thread > at the UX (User Experience) mailing list on features to include in > OpenOffice.org Writer 3.1, > http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1890 > > A few people mentioned OpenType support, > http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1894 > http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1899 > > The way to go with OOo and OpenType support, is to have users request > it, at the appropriate forums. From vgaburici at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 18:03:24 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:03:24 +0300 Subject: packager for liberation sans derivative needed (was: Re: Call for OpenType fonts!) In-Reply-To: <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> References: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> Message-ID: I'll gladly do some testing. As for the packaging, given that it's a derivative of Liberation, perhaps someone from Redhat will step up and include them in the official package... On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Gustavo Ferreira wrote: > > i have worked on a derivative version of liberation sans for a client (a > public university in brazil). i have made several changes to the design of > the existing fonts (it is closer to univers and akzidenz grotesk), and > created new ultralight and extrabold weights as well as small caps, > proportional numbers and case-sensitive punctuation for the text fonts (but > no greek or cyrillic). > > the university will be releasing their new visual identity soon, along with > the fonts. i plan to release an extended version* of the family (under a > different name) in september/october through my foundry. > > * including condensed and extended fonts for use in newspapers and magazines > > [the fonts were designed in the 'ivory tower' way, with mostly proprietary > software (macosx, fontlab, superpolator).] > > i would be happy if these fonts could end up in linux distros. > > if anyone is interested in testing the fonts on linux and taking care of the > packaging, please drop me a line. > > > regards, > - gustavo. > > > ps: the fonts are in opentype cff format. > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From grilo at centroin.com.br Tue Jul 22 18:22:18 2008 From: grilo at centroin.com.br (Gustavo Ferreira) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:22:18 -0300 Subject: packager for liberation sans derivative needed (was: Re: Call for OpenType fonts!) In-Reply-To: References: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> Message-ID: <8B2CE7A5-3D87-4A05-A3F5-061DBFDB2365@centroin.com.br> (sent off-list) On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > I'll gladly do some testing. As for the packaging, given that it's a > derivative of Liberation, perhaps someone from Redhat will step up and > include them in the official package... > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Gustavo Ferreira > wrote: >> >> i have worked on a derivative version of liberation sans for a >> client (a >> public university in brazil). i have made several changes to the >> design of >> the existing fonts (it is closer to univers and akzidenz grotesk), >> and >> created new ultralight and extrabold weights as well as small caps, >> proportional numbers and case-sensitive punctuation for the text >> fonts (but >> no greek or cyrillic). >> >> the university will be releasing their new visual identity soon, >> along with >> the fonts. i plan to release an extended version* of the family >> (under a >> different name) in september/october through my foundry. >> >> * including condensed and extended fonts for use in newspapers and >> magazines >> >> [the fonts were designed in the 'ivory tower' way, with mostly >> proprietary >> software (macosx, fontlab, superpolator).] >> >> i would be happy if these fonts could end up in linux distros. >> >> if anyone is interested in testing the fonts on linux and taking >> care of the >> packaging, please drop me a line. >> >> >> regards, >> - gustavo. >> >> >> ps: the fonts are in opentype cff format. >> From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Jul 22 19:05:43 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:05:43 +0200 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <1216753543.22046.6.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mardi 22 juillet 2008 ? 19:40 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > I've got some expert comments on the fonts. There are some issues with > the conversion... > > Details here: http://www.typophile.com/node/47578 Well if you want to do conversions I suggest you talk with Andrey Panov which has been converting old Type1 fonts to OTF lately (and then enhancing them). I suspect he'll tell you that's many months of work to do right but he can give you some tips on how to start. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Jul 22 19:10:29 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:10:29 +0200 Subject: packager for liberation sans derivative needed (was: Re: Call for OpenType fonts!) In-Reply-To: <8B2CE7A5-3D87-4A05-A3F5-061DBFDB2365@centroin.com.br> References: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> <8B2CE7A5-3D87-4A05-A3F5-061DBFDB2365@centroin.com.br> Message-ID: <1216753829.22046.9.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mardi 22 juillet 2008 ? 15:22 -0300, Gustavo Ferreira a ?crit : > On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > > > I'll gladly do some testing. As for the packaging, given that it's a > > derivative of Liberation, perhaps someone from Redhat will step up and > > include them in the official package... It's certainly worth asking the Liberation maintainer. However bear in mind Red Hat's main motivation was to have TNR/Arial metrically equivallent substitutes (that worked in OO.o, ie in TTF not OTF format) so they may well not be interested. Which does not mean Fedora isn't. If the font is suitably licensed I'll certainly add it to our packaging wishlist. (sadly that does not take care of finding people to work on this list) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 20:51:32 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:51:32 +0300 Subject: Analysis of combining diacritics support Message-ID: Here's something that will make Nicolas proud. Following the discussion from [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455981] I've looked at the level of support in Fedora of combining diacritics for Romanian. The summary: - Charis & Doulos SIL work perfectly - Linux Libertine works too, but pango complains about a GSUB error; fontmatrix results differ a bit (probably because of this) - DejaVu has positioning issues - Liberation and Minion Pro (and presumably most commercial fonts) don't support combining, so pango steals diacritics from another font. The result is pretty bad. You'll find the test here: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/comb.tar I'm too tired right now to write a description for each screenshot, but if something is unclear, ask and I'll reply tomorrow. Given that commercial fonts suck at this, I suspect we won't see the combing method used often. Not for Romanian anyway. It seems however that adding diacritics to arbitrary letters is useful in Dutch, according to this post anyway: [http://www.typophile.com/node/2764#comment-99219] From mnowak at redhat.com Wed Jul 23 07:19:46 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:19:46 +0200 Subject: Mukti fontset license In-Reply-To: <20080716081139.GB17704@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <20080716081139.GB17704@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20080723071946.GB8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> ping? On 10:11 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote: > Hi, > > Fedora Linux distribution considered packaging Your Mukti fontset, > but we found out that the license is GPLv2+, which we consider as > excellent for software but not for fonts. > > The problem we see is that when you embed the font inside PDF file > then the whole document has to be licensed as a GPLv2+ too. This is > thought to be controversial. > > Do you think it can be possible to change the license to e.g. 'GPLv2+ > + Font Exception'? The Exception would be this one: > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException > > Which just says that just embedding the font does not mean that you > have to license your file (e.g. book) as GPLv2+ too. > > Let me know whay you think. > > Looking forward to your reply. > > Regards, > Michal > From mnowak at redhat.com Wed Jul 23 07:20:21 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:20:21 +0200 Subject: contact kurditgroup In-Reply-To: <20080716075700.GA17704@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <20080716075700.GA17704@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20080723072021.GC8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> ping? On 09:57 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote: > Hi Bardaqani, > > sorry for not being clear on this for the first time. > > The problem with GPL licensed font is that when you for example > create PDF file (like a book) the you usually embed the font inside > the document and then is anyone able to see it correct even > when he does not have the Kurdish font in system (really good thing). > > But: When you have used GPL font (like Unikurd Web) inside PDF file > then you must license the file/book as a GPL too! And that's the > problem. > > Because of this there's special Font Exception which solves that > problem. > > What would help us a lot: > > 1. Re-license the fonts from 'GPLv3' to 'GPLv3 + exception'. > Here's the link to such text: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException > > 2. Write the text from the above link to the file gpl.txt inside > unikurdweb.zip file. > > > Solving points 1. and 2. will help us to distribute Your font in > Fedora and thus helpfull for Kurdish writing/speaking users in > general. > > Don't hesitate and write me in case of another questions or if > you need any further guidance. > > Thank you, > Michal > > > On 23:43 Tue 15 Jul , bardaqani bardaqani wrote: > > Dear Michal, > > How can help you? should we out the license inside a PDF or what? > > let me know > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, wrote: > > > > >
.Hi, > > > I wish I package some Unikurd fonts to Fedora Linux distribution
> > >
> > > The problem is actually the chosen license, which is plain GPLv3. Here you > > > can read why is the license not so well usable for usage e.g. inside PDF. > > >
> > >
> > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
> > >
> > > Please reply to my email mnowak at redhat.com for further information or > > > point me to someone whom can I talk to.
> > >
> > > Thank you for you time,
> > > Michal Nowak
> > >
> > > Michal Nowak   uid:0
> > >
> > > 2008-07-15
> > >
> > > From mnowak at redhat.com Wed Jul 23 07:22:33 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:22:33 +0200 Subject: [mnowak@redhat.com: License of Togoshi Fonts] Message-ID: <20080723072233.GD8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> I sent this to Togoshi Fonts maintainer via SourceForge.jp system (his email is dead to me) -- no response yet. ----- Forwarded message from Michal Nowak ----- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:00:51 +0200 From: Michal Nowak To: mshio at users.sourceforge.jp Subject: License of Togoshi Fonts User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Hi mshio-san, Fedora comunity would like to pack Togoshi Fonts them to be included in Fedora Linux Distribution. To proceed in packaging we are missing clear state on what actually is the current license? I went thru SF.net web page and font atchives there too, but I failed to found any lincese text. Could you be clear on this? The prefered way is to have license inside source package, which we can download from SF.net and/or inside the font itself as a comment (can be seen in gnome-font-viewer). Thank you for your time and hope in positive reply, mshio-san. PS: Here are the Fedora approved licenses http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses ----- End forwarded message ----- From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 08:53:45 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:53:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? Message-ID: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi all, We have several issues posing the problem of dual OTF/TTF fonts packaging. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995 Till now we've managed to avoid this issue, however it seems we can't escape Fedora guidelines on the subject anymore. Anyway, my feeling right now (I've not thought a lot on it) is: 1. the immense majority of apps do not access font files directly, they all use fontconfig (or should use fontconfig someday) 2. I don't know what algorithm fontconfig uses to choose between several formats of the same fonts, or even if its choices are stable. But whatever it is I think apps will only see one version of the fonts (or even one format for a face and another for other faces). So installing two formats on-disk is likely to be a waste of bandwidth and storage, and a source of subtle application bugs. 3. That being said, the right solution would seem to be obvious. Just use TTF only for quadratic fonts, and OTF only for cubic fonts. Long term most fonts will probably be OTF only (given it's a little better than TTF for new fonts). 4. Unfortunately, Java and OO.o have lots of problems with OpenType CFF fonts http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Known_fonts_and_text_bugs (please comment and vote on the relevant issues to put some pressure on upstream) So shipping only OTF versions is likely not to go well with OO.o users 5. But not shipping them will annoy other classes of users (TEX users, etc) 6. So I guess we probably need to do something like this: - fonts available in TTF and OTF formats have foo-fonts-ttf and foo-fonts-otf subpackages (no base package), unless one format is obviously more complete (more recent version with more fixes or coverage), in which case we only package this version without subpackaging. - the ttf subpackage is only provided if the format is supported upstream (no conversion on our side if upstream does not QA it) - if the font was mono-format before, foo-fonts-ttf obsoletes all the foo-fonts packages till the last known version (but no later) - the two packages own their subdirs if they share them and conflict with each other - when has OO.o fixed its bugs, we make foo-fonts-otf the new foo-fonts package, obsoleting all previous foo-fonts-otf and foo-fonts-ttf packages 7. for projects that use different font names for both formats (but functionally equivalent, since they are created from the same sfds), change them for both fonts export the same family name (with fontconfig aliasing of the upstream name) and use the same rules as before. An example would be Old Standards. Thoughts? -- Nicolas Mailhot From simos.lists at googlemail.com Wed Jul 23 09:11:41 2008 From: simos.lists at googlemail.com (Simos Xenitellis) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:11:41 +0100 Subject: Call for OpenType fonts! [Was: Re: Fwd: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar]] In-Reply-To: References: <598e9210807220940v6907d13bqea91e860a393a2ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <598e9210807230211x1c693a5fqe1bbc5cf8c9516f0@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > Most people using OOo probably don't have clue what features OpenType > provides, mostly because they've only seen Arial and Times New Roman. > So I don't expect widespread requests from the userbase... > > Btw, is there a way to vote for feature requests, or do we have to > spam them on the forums? It appears that the voting in the individual issues has little significance at the moment. If you join the UX mailing list (it's a list, not a web forum), there are more chances that something can happen. What I believe is missing is establishing to the UX list how many of the existing/prospective OOo users are affected. Simos > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Simos Xenitellis > wrote: >> Regarding OpenOffice.org and OpenType support, here is a recent thread >> at the UX (User Experience) mailing list on features to include in >> OpenOffice.org Writer 3.1, >> http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1890 >> >> A few people mentioned OpenType support, >> http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1894 >> http://ux.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1899 >> >> The way to go with OOo and OpenType support, is to have users request >> it, at the appropriate forums. > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 10:40:06 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:40:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <29254.192.54.193.59.1216809606.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mer 23 juillet 2008 12:23, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > > I'll share my thoughts in more detail later -- I'm in a hurry now. > One bit I was going to say: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: >> 2. I don't know what algorithm fontconfig uses to choose between >> several formats of the same fonts, or even if its choices are >> stable. > > Probably not. Linux Libertine's own packaging has an "O" appended to > the OpenType CFF version(s), e.g. > "Linux Libertine O" is CFF. This kinda' sucks. We need a more elegant > solution... If projects like Linux Libertine and Old standards systematically use different font names for OTF and TTF versions, we can avoid the "make the two subpackages conflict" bit, and just have two subpackages, that each declare themselves as valid substitute for the other (ie Linux Libertine O package says "you can use me instead of Linux Libertine if it's not present on system and Linux Libertine says "you can use me instead of Linux Libertine O if it's not present on system") -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 10:46:13 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:46:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: contact kurditgroup In-Reply-To: <20080723072021.GC8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <20080716075700.GA17704@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20080723072021.GC8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <45364.192.54.193.59.1216809973.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi Michal, Many thanks for sending those (and CC-ing the list). Many thanks to Martin-Gomez Pablo for doing the same. I know it's not exciting work (but it is necessary). If upstream does not answer after a while we of course still have the option to package those fonts under GPL without exception. That sucks for PDF and other font embedding users but GPL without exception fonts are allowed in the distribution. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 11:00:48 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:00:48 +0300 Subject: contact kurditgroup In-Reply-To: <45364.192.54.193.59.1216809973.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <20080716075700.GA17704@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20080723072021.GC8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <45364.192.54.193.59.1216809973.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: What are the implications of a GPL'd pdf? Having to give the (LaTeX or whatever) source? Having to allow others to modify said source? On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Many thanks for sending those (and CC-ing the list). Many thanks to > Martin-Gomez Pablo for doing the same. I know it's not exciting work > (but it is necessary). > > If upstream does not answer after a while we of course still have the > option to package those fonts under GPL without exception. That sucks > for PDF and other font embedding users but GPL without exception fonts > are allowed in the distribution. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 11:47:16 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:47:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: contact kurditgroup In-Reply-To: References: <20080716075700.GA17704@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20080723072021.GC8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <45364.192.54.193.59.1216809973.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <30626.192.54.193.59.1216813636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mer 23 juillet 2008 13:00, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > > What are the implications of a GPL'd pdf? Having to give the (LaTeX or > whatever) source? Having to allow others to modify said source? I think the implications are mostly you can not tell someone "here is my pdf document, you can look at it but I don't allow you to pass it to someone else". In many use cases this is not what the pdf creator wants when choosing to embed a font in a random document. What all that means is that vanilla GPL is a bad font license, and the FSF has yet to spend the time to write an authoritative font license. SIL did and that's why we recommend the OFL to font projects, even though I'm personnaly not comfortable with all SIL choices. But it beats the legal mess GPL font projects can become (Liberation is a good example of this). Junk licensing : - Bistream Vera - Liberation (one-shot licenses with little thought to reuse, good enough for shipping in Fedora but not really suitable for reuse by new projects) Software licenses bent out of shape to sort of apply to fonts - GPL + font exception - GUST license either way the result is not too convincing. Having to deal with licenses is bad enough without needing to sieve through difficult to read patched licenses. Font-oriented licenses: - OFL - DSL (marginal use) The OFL has clearly been written with the font context in mind, and for this reason is much better than all of the above (and we recommend it). Its main faults are not in the execution, but in the balance between original author and downstream rights. It's not as symmetrical as GPL is for software. The LGPL seems not to suffer from the GPL problems when applied to fonts (but I've not done a deep analysis, IANAL). Strangely enough it's rarely used and Free Software oriented projects seem to prefer the GPL, which forces us to do the "please add the FSF font exception" circus. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 11:55:24 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:55:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: contact kurditgroup In-Reply-To: <30626.192.54.193.59.1216813636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <20080716075700.GA17704@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20080723072021.GC8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> <45364.192.54.193.59.1216809973.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <30626.192.54.193.59.1216813636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <63312.192.54.193.59.1216814124.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mer 23 juillet 2008 13:47, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > The LGPL seems not to suffer from the GPL problems when applied to > fonts (but I've not done a deep analysis, IANAL). Strangely enough > it's rarely used and Free Software oriented projects seem to prefer > the GPL, which forces us to do the "please add the FSF font exception" > circus. (Of course the LGPL would still force people to do things like "here is a pdf, if you want to look at the sources of the fonts it uses I can make them available". Probably not what a lot of people want) -- Nicolas Mailhot From jonstanley at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 12:26:50 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:26:50 -0400 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi all, > > We have several issues posing the problem of dual OTF/TTF fonts > packaging. > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995 > > Till now we've managed to avoid this issue, however it seems we can't > escape Fedora guidelines on the subject anymore. > > Anyway, my feeling right now (I've not thought a lot on it) is: > > 1. the immense majority of apps do not access font files directly, > they all use fontconfig (or should use fontconfig someday) Agreed. > 2. I don't know what algorithm fontconfig uses to choose between > several formats of the same fonts, or even if its choices are stable. > But whatever it is I think apps will only see one version of the fonts > (or even one format for a face and another for other faces). So > installing two formats on-disk is likely to be a waste of bandwidth > and storage, and a source of subtle application bugs. Let's hope it's some deterministic algorithm - OTF is better than TTF, for example. > 3. That being said, the right solution would seem to be obvious. Just > use TTF only for quadratic fonts, and OTF only for cubic fonts. Long > term most fonts will probably be OTF only (given it's a little better > than TTF for new fonts). /me new to this whole fonts game - unsure of what's meant here :) > 6. So I guess we probably need to do something like this: > - fonts available in TTF and OTF formats have foo-fonts-ttf and > foo-fonts-otf subpackages (no base package), unless one format is There needs to be a base package per packaging guidelines, and the reasoning makes sense here too. If we didn't have that, we'd have two packages throwing things into %{fontdir} with no one owning it. So the base package has to at least own that directory (and hence the requirement for fully versioned Requires, etc). If upstream was nice, and included a detached license file, font map, etc to include in %doc, then those should go into the base package as well. I've also left the fontconfig file in the base package since it applies to both. I've done this in a generic way (that could perhaps be integrated into the template?) for the font that started this discussion at http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/sportrop-fonts.spec > obviously more complete (more recent version with more fixes or > coverage), in which case we only package this version without > subpackaging. Yep > - the ttf subpackage is only provided if the format is supported > upstream (no conversion on our side if upstream does not QA it) > - if the font was mono-format before, foo-fonts-ttf obsoletes all the > foo-fonts packages till the last known version (but no later) > - the two packages own their subdirs if they share them and conflict > with each other > - when has OO.o fixed its bugs, we make foo-fonts-otf the new > foo-fonts package, obsoleting all previous foo-fonts-otf and > foo-fonts-ttf packages Is OO.o really the only reason to ship a TTF version? I'm thinking that if upstream provides it, we should probably ship it (and make the otf version the default once OO.o fixes it's bugs) > 7. for projects that use different font names for both formats (but > functionally equivalent, since they are created from the same sfds), > change them for both fonts export the same family name (with > fontconfig aliasing of the upstream name) and use the same rules as > before. An example would be Old Standards. This would be utter craziness - but oh well. From behdad at behdad.org Wed Jul 23 15:51:45 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:51:45 -0400 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 10:53 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi all, > > We have several issues posing the problem of dual OTF/TTF fonts > packaging. > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995 > > Till now we've managed to avoid this issue, however it seems we can't > escape Fedora guidelines on the subject anymore. > > Anyway, my feeling right now (I've not thought a lot on it) is: > > 1. the immense majority of apps do not access font files directly, > they all use fontconfig (or should use fontconfig someday) > > 2. I don't know what algorithm fontconfig uses to choose between > several formats of the same fonts, or even if its choices are stable. > But whatever it is I think apps will only see one version of the fonts > (or even one format for a face and another for other faces). So > installing two formats on-disk is likely to be a waste of bandwidth > and storage, and a source of subtle application bugs. It uses the version number to prefer one over the other. If both have the same version, it may not be deterministic, not sure. > 3. That being said, the right solution would seem to be obvious. Just > use TTF only for quadratic fonts, and OTF only for cubic fonts. Long > term most fonts will probably be OTF only (given it's a little better > than TTF for new fonts). No, right solution is OTF for all. > 4. Unfortunately, Java and OO.o have lots of problems with OpenType > CFF fonts > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Known_fonts_and_text_bugs > (please comment and vote on the relevant issues to put some pressure > on upstream) > So shipping only OTF versions is likely not to go well with OO.o users Then lets fix OO.o and Java (we have a Free java now). Don't hold back the OTF transition. There's a reason that OTF is backward compatible. Or do you mean "OpenType CFF" when you say OTF? > 5. But not shipping them will annoy other classes of users (TEX users, > etc) "TrueType OTF" makes everyone happy, doesn't it? > 6. So I guess we probably need to do something like this: > - fonts available in TTF and OTF formats have foo-fonts-ttf and > foo-fonts-otf subpackages (no base package), unless one format is > obviously more complete (more recent version with more fixes or > coverage), in which case we only package this version without > subpackaging. > - the ttf subpackage is only provided if the format is supported > upstream (no conversion on our side if upstream does not QA it) > - if the font was mono-format before, foo-fonts-ttf obsoletes all the > foo-fonts packages till the last known version (but no later) > - the two packages own their subdirs if they share them and conflict > with each other > - when has OO.o fixed its bugs, we make foo-fonts-otf the new > foo-fonts package, obsoleting all previous foo-fonts-otf and > foo-fonts-ttf packages For god's sake no. Keep it simple. > 7. for projects that use different font names for both formats (but > functionally equivalent, since they are created from the same sfds), > change them for both fonts export the same family name (with > fontconfig aliasing of the upstream name) and use the same rules as > before. An example would be Old Standards. > > Thoughts? > -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From dave at lab6.com Wed Jul 23 16:12:36 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:12:36 +0100 Subject: packager for liberation sans derivative needed (was: Re: Call for OpenType fonts!) In-Reply-To: <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> References: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807230912y49b8c947hd407504c1297084b@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/22 Gustavo Ferreira : > > i plan to release an extended version* of the family (under a > different name) in september/october through my foundry. Wow! This is really great news Gustavo! :-) > [the fonts were designed in the 'ivory tower' way No problem with that at all :-) > i would be happy if these fonts could end up in linux distros. Wonderful! :-) > if anyone is interested in testing the fonts on linux and taking care of the > packaging, please drop me a line. I've been meaning to get set up for packaging fonts for Debian and Fedora for a while, so hopefully I'll have some experience doing this packaging work by september/october :-) -- Regards, Dave From benlaenen at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 16:13:33 2008 From: benlaenen at gmail.com (Ben Laenen) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:13:33 +0200 Subject: Analysis of combining diacritics support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200807231813.33615.benlaenen@gmail.com> On Tuesday 22 July 2008, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > - DejaVu has positioning issues The positioning issue you see is likely a problem that T doesn't have a cedilla anchor in Serif. Normally an easy fix. That's why renderers should have fall-back options (like Qt has). Usually these fall backs will give less optimal results, but a lot better than nothing at all. > Given that commercial fonts suck at this, I suspect we won't see the > combing method used often. Not for Romanian anyway. It seems however > that adding diacritics to arbitrary letters is useful in Dutch, > according to this post anyway: > [http://www.typophile.com/node/2764#comment-99219] Well, we would need them only in one rare case (when we emphasize the "ij" sound, like "?j?" ) As a result the accent on the j is usually dropped, so it becomes "?j", but official spelling rules want both accents. Anyway, there are many languages with Latin script that are much worse of (a lot of African languages for example), since combining diacritics are needed in an awful lot of other languages. Because font foundries select their character sets based on the market demand, they don't see a lot of merit in adding glyphs and features that are only needed there. So, that's basically something we should exploit with free/open fonts, to give us the lead in these areas. Greetings Ben From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 17:28:21 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:28:21 +0200 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 ? 11:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 10:53 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > 2. I don't know what algorithm fontconfig uses to choose between > > several formats of the same fonts, or even if its choices are stable. > It uses the version number to prefer one over the other. If both have > the same version, it may not be deterministic, not sure. That's unfortunately the case we're likely to have. > > 3. That being said, the right solution would seem to be obvious. Just > > use TTF only for quadratic fonts, and OTF only for cubic fonts. Long > > term most fonts will probably be OTF only (given it's a little better > > than TTF for new fonts). > > No, right solution is OTF for all. I agree if OTF = OpenType (CCF or not) > > 4. Unfortunately, Java and OO.o have lots of problems with OpenType > > CFF fonts > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Known_fonts_and_text_bugs > > (please comment and vote on the relevant issues to put some pressure > > on upstream) > > So shipping only OTF versions is likely not to go well with OO.o users > > Then lets fix OO.o and Java (we have a Free java now). Don't hold back > the OTF transition. There's a reason that OTF is backward compatible. > Or do you mean "OpenType CFF" when you say OTF? In my mail OTF = OpenType CCF, TTF = OpenType TTF OO.o does not support the first one at all. http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78858 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029 It supports the second one badly. http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78749 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=16032 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=79878 Maybe if you complain to the OO.o guys they'll start to do something about it. They've certainly not exhibited a lot of enthusiasm so far. This is a major problem given almost all the fonts we've recently included or plan to include are OpenType CCF. > > 5. But not shipping them will annoy other classes of users (TEX users, > > etc) > > "TrueType OTF" makes everyone happy, doesn't it? We have at least one TEX user firmly believing in the superiority of cubic splines (not surprising after the years of Adobe marketing on the subject) asking to provide a OpenType CCF version of a font we already ship as OpenType TrueType (and can't drop till the OO.o bugs are fixed) > > 6. So I guess we probably need to do something like this: > > - fonts available in TTF and OTF formats have foo-fonts-ttf and > > foo-fonts-otf subpackages (no base package), unless one format is > > obviously more complete (more recent version with more fixes or > > coverage), in which case we only package this version without > > subpackaging. > > - the ttf subpackage is only provided if the format is supported > > upstream (no conversion on our side if upstream does not QA it) > > - if the font was mono-format before, foo-fonts-ttf obsoletes all the > > foo-fonts packages till the last known version (but no later) > > - the two packages own their subdirs if they share them and conflict > > with each other > > - when has OO.o fixed its bugs, we make foo-fonts-otf the new > > foo-fonts package, obsoleting all previous foo-fonts-otf and > > foo-fonts-ttf packages > > For god's sake no. Keep it simple. I really do not like it either. But I don't see how to keep both TTF and OTF users happy otherwise. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 17:41:47 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:41:47 +0200 Subject: packager for liberation sans derivative needed (was: Re: Call for OpenType fonts!) In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807230912y49b8c947hd407504c1297084b@mail.gmail.com> References: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> <2285a9d20807230912y49b8c947hd407504c1297084b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1216834907.9991.17.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 ? 17:12 +0100, Dave Crossland a ?crit : > 2008/7/22 Gustavo Ferreira : > > if anyone is interested in testing the fonts on linux and taking care of the > > packaging, please drop me a line. > > I've been meaning to get set up for packaging fonts for Debian and > Fedora for a while, so hopefully I'll have some experience doing this > packaging work by september/october :-) We'll be very happy to help you get on board Fedora-side. We've still a lot of work to do to catch up with Debian ? please do not widen the gap by starting their side :p -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 17:56:06 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:56:06 +0300 Subject: packager for liberation sans derivative needed (was: Re: Call for OpenType fonts!) In-Reply-To: <8B2CE7A5-3D87-4A05-A3F5-061DBFDB2365@centroin.com.br> References: <16768.192.54.193.59.1216737636.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <445FDA95-9831-429E-AE6E-5EE733056198@centroin.com.br> <8B2CE7A5-3D87-4A05-A3F5-061DBFDB2365@centroin.com.br> Message-ID: I took a quick look at the fonts, and I am impressed with the quality. If you want a pragmatic reason why these should become part of Fedora, here it is: on Windows, MS Office adds Arial Black and Narrow, so there's some choice of weights for titling and subheads. On Linux there wasn't one until Gustavo's work. I sent him more nitty-gritty comments off-list. On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Gustavo Ferreira wrote: > (sent off-list) > > On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > >> I'll gladly do some testing. As for the packaging, given that it's a >> derivative of Liberation, perhaps someone from Redhat will step up and >> include them in the official package... >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Gustavo Ferreira >> wrote: >>> >>> i have worked on a derivative version of liberation sans for a client (a >>> public university in brazil). i have made several changes to the design >>> of >>> the existing fonts (it is closer to univers and akzidenz grotesk), and >>> created new ultralight and extrabold weights as well as small caps, >>> proportional numbers and case-sensitive punctuation for the text fonts >>> (but >>> no greek or cyrillic). >>> >>> the university will be releasing their new visual identity soon, along >>> with >>> the fonts. i plan to release an extended version* of the family (under a >>> different name) in september/october through my foundry. >>> >>> * including condensed and extended fonts for use in newspapers and >>> magazines >>> >>> [the fonts were designed in the 'ivory tower' way, with mostly >>> proprietary >>> software (macosx, fontlab, superpolator).] >>> >>> i would be happy if these fonts could end up in linux distros. >>> >>> if anyone is interested in testing the fonts on linux and taking care of >>> the >>> packaging, please drop me a line. >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> - gustavo. >>> >>> >>> ps: the fonts are in opentype cff format. >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 17:59:48 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:59:48 +0200 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 ? 08:26 -0400, Jon Stanley a ?crit : > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Nicolas Mailhot > > 3. That being said, the right solution would seem to be obvious. Just > > use TTF only for quadratic fonts, and OTF only for cubic fonts. Long > > term most fonts will probably be OTF only (given it's a little better > > than TTF for new fonts). > > /me new to this whole fonts game - unsure of what's meant here :) The only significant functionnal difference between OpenType CFF (OTF) and OpenType TrueType (TTF) nowadays is that CFF allows cubic splines (curves expressed with third-order equations as in a?x? + b?y? + c) and TTF only supports quadratic (b?y? + c) It's an historic remnant of last century digital font format wars: Adobe chose cubic for its Type1 print-oriented fonts, while Microsoft/Apple simplified the math for their PC-oriented TrueType format. In practice you can approximate cubic splines by just cutting cubic segments in many quadratic ones, which font editors like fontforge do automatically, and at the sizes text is typically rendered there's no visible difference. But after years of marketing on the subject some users are convinced transformation to quadratic for fonts designed with cubic splines is a quality loss. > > > 6. So I guess we probably need to do something like this: > > - fonts available in TTF and OTF formats have foo-fonts-ttf and > > foo-fonts-otf subpackages (no base package), unless one format is > > There needs to be a base package per packaging guidelines, and the > reasoning makes sense here too. If we didn't have that, we'd have two > packages throwing things into %{fontdir} with no one owning it. 1. They can both own it if they conflict so they're not installed concurrently. 2. And even if they were installed concurrently, the main argument against multiple ownership of the same directory is it may be set up with different permissions by different packages, which is obviously not the case if all those packages are built from the same srpm 3. plus you can just use different fonts subdirs if you care about this > So the > base package has to at least own that directory (and hence the > requirement for fully versioned Requires, etc) Not really > If upstream was nice, > and included a detached license file, font map, etc to include in > %doc, then those should go into the base package as well. I don't think duplicating those in two subpackages is too bad. Certainly less than dumping a third package with a few documentation files and an empty dir in our repositories. > I've also > left the fontconfig file in the base package since it applies to both. > > I've done this in a generic way (that could perhaps be integrated into > the template?) for the font that started this discussion at > http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/sportrop-fonts.spec I'll look at this. If we can agree on a position on OTF/TTF dual packaging, certainly we'll have to revise guidelines accordingly. > Is OO.o really the only reason to ship a TTF version? Practically ? yes. All the other software either supports OTF just fine through system libs like pango, or has marginal font use (Java), or is itself totally marginal. > I'm thinking > that if upstream provides it, we should probably ship it (and make the > otf version the default once OO.o fixes it's bugs) The main problem is that if we choose to ship an OTF version of a font also available in TTF, it needs to be in a separate package so users can pass on it to make sure they only get the TTF version in OO.o (or conversely just install the OTF one if they don't care about OO.o) > > 7. for projects that use different font names for both formats (but > > functionally equivalent, since they are created from the same sfds), > > change them for both fonts export the same family name (with > > fontconfig aliasing of the upstream name) and use the same rules as > > before. An example would be Old Standards. > > This would be utter craziness - but oh well. The whole thing is crazyness :( -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 18:02:49 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:02:49 +0200 Subject: Analysis of combining diacritics support In-Reply-To: <200807231813.33615.benlaenen@gmail.com> References: <200807231813.33615.benlaenen@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1216836169.9991.38.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 ? 18:13 +0200, Ben Laenen a ?crit : > Because font foundries > select their character sets based on the market demand, Because font foundries select their character sets based on the countries they want to sell fonts to? > they don't see > a lot of merit in adding glyphs and features that are only needed > there. ? they don't see a lot of merit in adding glyphs used in poor countries and/or countries where they don't intend to invest in a commercial entity. > So, that's basically something we should exploit with free/open fonts, > to give us the lead in these areas. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From behdad at behdad.org Wed Jul 23 17:49:58 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:49:58 -0400 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 19:28 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 ? 11:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 10:53 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > 2. I don't know what algorithm fontconfig uses to choose between > > > several formats of the same fonts, or even if its choices are stable. > > > It uses the version number to prefer one over the other. If both have > > the same version, it may not be deterministic, not sure. > > That's unfortunately the case we're likely to have. Right. Too bad the OpenType spec does not allow having both CFF and TrueType outlines in one container. > > > 3. That being said, the right solution would seem to be obvious. Just > > > use TTF only for quadratic fonts, and OTF only for cubic fonts. Long > > > term most fonts will probably be OTF only (given it's a little better > > > than TTF for new fonts). > > > > No, right solution is OTF for all. > > I agree if OTF = OpenType (CCF or not) Right. I keep forgetting that MS calls it otherwise. > > > 4. Unfortunately, Java and OO.o have lots of problems with OpenType > > > CFF fonts > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Known_fonts_and_text_bugs > > > (please comment and vote on the relevant issues to put some pressure > > > on upstream) > > > So shipping only OTF versions is likely not to go well with OO.o users > > > > Then lets fix OO.o and Java (we have a Free java now). Don't hold back > > the OTF transition. There's a reason that OTF is backward compatible. > > > Or do you mean "OpenType CFF" when you say OTF? > > In my mail OTF = OpenType CCF, TTF = OpenType TTF > > OO.o does not support the first one at all. > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78858 > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029 > > It supports the second one badly. > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78749 > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=16032 > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=79878 > > Maybe if you complain to the OO.o guys they'll start to do something > about it. They've certainly not exhibited a lot of enthusiasm so far. Yeah, lets do that. It's much more promising now that they are porting to cairo. Unfortunately I don't think they port their printing code any time soon, but when they do, all fonts will be supported. (It just happens that cairo is so lucky to have someone called Adrian Johnson who implements support for all and every font types in the PDF backend... Makes all other projects envious) > This is a major problem given almost all the fonts we've recently > included or plan to include are OpenType CCF. > > > > 5. But not shipping them will annoy other classes of users (TEX users, > > > etc) > > > > "TrueType OTF" makes everyone happy, doesn't it? > > We have at least one TEX user firmly believing in the superiority of > cubic splines (not surprising after the years of Adobe marketing on the > subject) asking to provide a OpenType CCF version of a font we already > ship as OpenType TrueType (and can't drop till the OO.o bugs are fixed) > > > > 6. So I guess we probably need to do something like this: > > > - fonts available in TTF and OTF formats have foo-fonts-ttf and > > > foo-fonts-otf subpackages (no base package), unless one format is > > > obviously more complete (more recent version with more fixes or > > > coverage), in which case we only package this version without > > > subpackaging. > > > - the ttf subpackage is only provided if the format is supported > > > upstream (no conversion on our side if upstream does not QA it) > > > - if the font was mono-format before, foo-fonts-ttf obsoletes all the > > > foo-fonts packages till the last known version (but no later) > > > - the two packages own their subdirs if they share them and conflict > > > with each other > > > - when has OO.o fixed its bugs, we make foo-fonts-otf the new > > > foo-fonts package, obsoleting all previous foo-fonts-otf and > > > foo-fonts-ttf packages > > > > For god's sake no. Keep it simple. > > I really do not like it either. But I don't see how to keep both TTF and > OTF users happy otherwise. If we want to install both, just put them side by side I guess with no split packaging, and lets patch fontconfig if needed, to make it decide deterministically. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 18:14:55 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:14:55 +0200 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: <1216836895.9991.48.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 ? 13:49 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > > > > 4. Unfortunately, Java and OO.o have lots of problems with OpenType > > > > CFF fonts > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Known_fonts_and_text_bugs > > > > (please comment and vote on the relevant issues to put some pressure > > > > on upstream) > > > > So shipping only OTF versions is likely not to go well with OO.o users > > > > > > Then lets fix OO.o and Java (we have a Free java now). Don't hold back > > > the OTF transition. There's a reason that OTF is backward compatible. > > > > > Or do you mean "OpenType CFF" when you say OTF? > > > > In my mail OTF = OpenType CCF, TTF = OpenType TTF > > > > OO.o does not support the first one at all. > > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78858 > > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029 > > > > It supports the second one badly. > > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78749 > > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=16032 > > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=79878 > > > > Maybe if you complain to the OO.o guys they'll start to do something > > about it. They've certainly not exhibited a lot of enthusiasm so far. > > Yeah, lets do that. It's much more promising now that they are porting > to cairo. Unfortunately I don't think they port their printing code any > time soon, but when they do, all fonts will be supported. (It just > happens that cairo is so lucky to have someone called Adrian Johnson who > implements support for all and every font types in the PDF backend... > Makes all other projects envious) I fear the cairo port is at least a year away http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=88613 So it's not a solution to our next releases > > I really do not like it either. But I don't see how to keep both TTF and > > OTF users happy otherwise. > > If we want to install both, just put them side by side I guess with no > split packaging, and lets patch fontconfig if needed, to make it decide > deterministically. Can you patch fontconfig so apps get OTF (OpenType CFF) versions by default, unless they explicitely request OpenType TTF files? (when the same version of the same font is available in both formats) That would simplify the problem to just having OO.o use the second mode till it fixes its bugs (plus probably just hide any CFF font to apps using the second mode) I must admit my main motivation for split packaging was avoiding the QA hell of some users getting TTF in OO.o, others getting OTF, having OO.o fail, and open bug reports. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 18:47:25 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:47:25 +0200 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216838208.4928.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216836895.9991.48.camel@rousalka.okg> <1216838208.4928.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: <1216838845.9991.53.camel@rousalka.okg> Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 ? 14:36 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 20:14 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Can you patch fontconfig so apps get OTF (OpenType CFF) versions by > > default, unless they explicitely request OpenType TTF files? (when the > > same version of the same font is available in both formats) > > Not right now. But filed it at least: > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16818 Thanks! -- Nicolas Mailhot Still looking for the pony fairy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 19:12:26 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:12:26 +0300 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > In practice you can approximate cubic splines by just cutting cubic > segments in many quadratic ones, which font editors like fontforge do > automatically, and at the sizes text is typically rendered there's no > visible difference. > > But after years of marketing on the subject some users are convinced > transformation to quadratic for fonts designed with cubic splines is a > quality loss. Indeed. I was one that believed there would be a difference, but even at 512 display size, I don't see a single pixel that differs. Screenshots here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312489 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312491 On the other hand, CFF and TFF use different hinting mechanisms, and there a visible difference at small (10-12) point sizes, even on Windows. On the TTF vs. CFF issue, Adam Twardoch, one of the FontLab's managers (don't let this make you think he's all marketingspeak) has some insightful comments here: http://www.typophile.com/node/16695#comment-99516. My summary of his position is that TrueType in in OpenType packaging should genrally be prefered to OpenType/CCF as an end-user delivery method, all other features being equal. Unfortunately, on Fedora we also have a more complex hinting issue: Apple has a patent on TrueType hinting, so TT hinting is off by default (there's a Livna package to enable it). Also, most free fonts like Linux Libertine store the manually produced PostScript hinting in their sfd file (I checked with Philipp), and the TT hinting is generated in FontForge just before the TTF is exported. So my guess is that the CFF hinting is likely to be better, since it's hand-made. I need to do a few more test on this though... From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 19:26:43 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:26:43 +0300 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: [Mumbles: I really whish gmail defaulted to "reply all"] On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > As a little addendum, here's a quote from Adobe's Thomas Phinney, a > bit further down that typophile thread: "The professional publishing > market seems to have a strong preference for CFF, even if there is no > technical reality behind that." > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Nicolas Mailhot >> wrote: >>> In practice you can approximate cubic splines by just cutting cubic >>> segments in many quadratic ones, which font editors like fontforge do >>> automatically, and at the sizes text is typically rendered there's no >>> visible difference. >>> >>> But after years of marketing on the subject some users are convinced >>> transformation to quadratic for fonts designed with cubic splines is a >>> quality loss. >> >> Indeed. I was one that believed there would be a difference, but even >> at 512 display size, I don't see a single pixel that differs. >> Screenshots here: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312489 >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312491 >> >> On the other hand, CFF and TFF use different hinting mechanisms, and >> there a visible difference at small (10-12) point sizes, even on >> Windows. >> >> On the TTF vs. CFF issue, Adam Twardoch, one of the FontLab's managers >> (don't let this make you think he's all marketingspeak) has some >> insightful comments here: >> http://www.typophile.com/node/16695#comment-99516. My summary of his >> position is that TrueType in in OpenType packaging should genrally be >> prefered to OpenType/CCF as an end-user delivery method, all other >> features being equal. >> >> Unfortunately, on Fedora we also have a more complex hinting issue: >> Apple has a patent on TrueType hinting, so TT hinting is off by >> default (there's a Livna package to enable it). Also, most free fonts >> like Linux Libertine store the manually produced PostScript hinting in >> their sfd file (I checked with Philipp), and the TT hinting is >> generated in FontForge just before the TTF is exported. So my guess is >> that the CFF hinting is likely to be better, since it's hand-made. I >> need to do a few more test on this though... >> > From cloos at jhcloos.com Wed Jul 23 19:45:32 2008 From: cloos at jhcloos.com (James Cloos) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Fontconfig] TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216836895.9991.48.camel@rousalka.okg> (Nicolas Mailhot's message of "Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:14:55 +0200") References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216836895.9991.48.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: >>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Mailhot writes: Nicolas> Can you patch fontconfig so apps get OTF (OpenType CFF) Nicolas> versions by default, unless they explicitely request OpenType Nicolas> TTF files? (when the same version of the same font is available Nicolas> in both formats) You may be able to do that in fonts.conf. test name="fontformat" for the strings >TrueType<, >CFF< or >Type 1<. Or, you might want to patch apps like OO.o, AbiWord, et al to ignore CFF; there is a C-level api for that, too. In fact, until they actually support CFF, they should do that upstream.... -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 From pablo.martin-gomez at laposte.net Wed Jul 23 22:36:26 2008 From: pablo.martin-gomez at laposte.net (Martin-Gomez Pablo) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:36:26 +0200 Subject: Suffix for "Old Standard" ? Message-ID: <20080724003626.5518ad0c@laposte.net> Hi, As I'm attempting to create a package of the (great) Old Standard font, I have mail the founder and have got the answer (forwarded). The answer is quite harsh (if that I spare you the "anti-source building" paragraph. So we need to add a suffix to the name but I'm not imaginative for finding a good suffix (maybe "iced" as Nicolas propose), anyone of you have an lightning idea ? Pablo ----- Message Transf?r? ----- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:08:35 +0400 De: Alexey Kryukov ?: Martin-Gomez Pablo Sujet: Re: Packaging "Old Standard" font in Fedora On Wednesday 23 July 2008, you wrote: > about building Old Standard from source. Do you still wish us to > change the name of the font if we built it (without any > modifications) from sources ? It would be quite daft to have Old > Standard packaged in Fedora without it original name. Unfortunately, yes. I don't insist the name should be changed entirely, adding a suffix (say, "Old Standard FC") would be sufficient and even preferrable. The reason is that I could not update the source package on my site for more than a year (instead I was spending my efforts improving FontForge itself :), and the current FF version is not guaranteed to produce correct results with such old source files. This can lead to problems I have no intention to be responsible of. [...] -- Regards, Alexej Kryukov Moscow State University Historical Faculty From grilo at centroin.com.br Wed Jul 23 22:42:54 2008 From: grilo at centroin.com.br (Gustavo Ferreira) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:42:54 -0300 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <4086784B-AC0B-4EDB-BA62-39A6DCCAD18A@centroin.com.br> On Jul 23, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le mercredi 23 juillet 2008 ? 08:26 -0400, Jon Stanley a ?crit : >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Nicolas Mailhot > >>> 3. That being said, the right solution would seem to be obvious. >>> Just >>> use TTF only for quadratic fonts, and OTF only for cubic fonts. Long >>> term most fonts will probably be OTF only (given it's a little >>> better >>> than TTF for new fonts). >> >> /me new to this whole fonts game - unsure of what's meant here :) > > The only significant functionnal difference between OpenType CFF (OTF) > and OpenType TrueType (TTF) nowadays is that CFF allows cubic splines > (curves expressed with third-order equations as in a?x? + b?y? > + c) and > TTF only supports quadratic (b?y? + c) screen optimisation strategy is another significant difference between the two formats. truetype fonts contain instructions, active information which tells the rasterizer exactly how each pixel should be drawn on screen at a given ppem size. postscript/opentype cff fonts contain hints, passive information which is interpreted by the rasterizer. maybe this difference is not significant under linux/free type, but it is huge for windows users. From dave at lab6.com Wed Jul 23 23:11:49 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:11:49 +0100 Subject: Suffix for "Old Standard" ? In-Reply-To: <20080724003626.5518ad0c@laposte.net> References: <20080724003626.5518ad0c@laposte.net> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807231611sf7672b5q44952d5b38f3730b@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/23 Martin-Gomez Pablo : > > So we need to add a suffix to the name but I'm not imaginative for > finding a good suffix (maybe "iced" as Nicolas propose), anyone of you > have an lightning idea ? Why not use a build of FF from the same time the source files were published? -- Regards, Dave From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 23 23:43:42 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:43:42 +0300 Subject: Proposal: reference locl feature file Message-ID: It's surprisingly hard to find good information on how the locl OpenType feature should be handled for various languages. I propose we add a well commented reference fea file somewhere on the Fedora wiki. It probably won't be possible to automatically import this reference into every font without modification because glyphs may be missing in some fonts etc., but it should still be useful enough to subset from. Perhaps in the future FontForge may be able to intelligently import the rules based on the glyphs included in the font... So far, I've been scraping for references, below are the ones I've got. Please contribute the ones you know: 1) DejaVu's source. After the recent discussion on bug #455981, I know DejaVu cares about languages Adobe hasn't even heard of. 2) Adam Twardoch's take on Latin scripts: http://typophile.com/node/29469/168548#comment-168548 3) The Gyre font source: http://www.tug.org/texlive/devsrc/Master/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/tex-gyre/qzcmi.fea 4) An informative, but not so coherent discussion here: http://typophile.com/node/16705 5) The issue of double encoding explained: http://groups.msn.com/FontLab/tipsandtricks.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=6151 From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 07:41:04 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:41:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Fontconfig] TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216836895.9991.48.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <54264.192.54.193.59.1216885264.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mer 23 juillet 2008 21:45, James Cloos a ?crit : > >>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Mailhot >>>>>> writes: > > Nicolas> Can you patch fontconfig so apps get OTF (OpenType CFF) > Nicolas> versions by default, unless they explicitely request OpenType > Nicolas> TTF files? (when the same version of the same font is > available Nicolas> in both formats) > > You may be able to do that in fonts.conf. > test name="fontformat" for the strings >TrueType<, >CFF< or >Type 1<. But is it possible to write a blanket rule for all fonts? > Or, you might want to patch apps like OO.o, AbiWord, et al to ignore > CFF; there is a C-level api for that, too. In fact, until they > actually support CFF, they should do that upstream.... Ok, I guess that means we need to open app-specific bugs now. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 07:49:10 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:49:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Proposal: reference locl feature file In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16901.192.54.193.59.1216885750.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 01:43, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > > It's surprisingly hard to find good information on how the locl > OpenType feature should be handled for various languages. I propose we > add a well commented reference fea file somewhere on the Fedora wiki. Well, it's a wiki. Just to it (preferably using a native floss format, but I guess anything fontforge understands is ok) -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 07:59:58 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:59:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Suffix for "Old Standard" ? In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807231611sf7672b5q44952d5b38f3730b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080724003626.5518ad0c@laposte.net> <2285a9d20807231611sf7672b5q44952d5b38f3730b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <50255.192.54.193.59.1216886398.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 01:11, Dave Crossland a ?crit : > > 2008/7/23 Martin-Gomez Pablo : >> >> So we need to add a suffix to the name but I'm not imaginative for >> finding a good suffix (maybe "iced" as Nicolas propose), anyone of >> you have an lightning idea ? > > Why not use a build of FF from the same time the source files were > published? 1. Other fonts in the distro depend on a recent fontforge release. If we start requiring one fontforge version per font we're dead. 2. While the author objects most to the current fontforge version, I'm almost sure he'd want us to change the font name even if we used the exact same version as his. As the author says, we have to stand up for our own choices. Fedora builds its content from sources. With fonts and pretty much anything else that means aligning on a few build tool versions which are almost certain not to be the same upstreams tested, and if this change introduces problems, we have to track and get them fixed. (but at least we know we can re-generate and patch our version at will, unlike organisations that copy a pre-built version and have no idea how to fix it in case of problems) The author's feeling is not uncommon software-side too, you know. I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to the latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild every font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. That's what we did in previous releases. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 08:31:16 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:31:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <44545.192.54.193.59.1216888276.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> All, After the discussion on two public lists, and some public and private exchanges on IRC with people whose opinion I respect a lot, since no one proposed a problem-free way to do dual format packaging, and many objected to all this complexity just to work around OpenOffice.org bugs, I propose the following simplified policy. 1. If upstream works with one preferred OpenType format (TTF or OTF), use this format. 2. If a font is available in both TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType CCF) formats, package the most recent and complete version. 3. If both formats are generated from the same source upstream, package the OTF (OpenType CCF) version. The reason is most font editors work with cubic splines natively, and we don't ignore CFF hinting the way we do TT hinting (different legal context), so the OTF version may be slightly better in our context. 4. For already packaged fonts, continue to package the TTF (OpenType TT) format till OO.o is fixed. The reason is to avoid upsetting users that already created documents using the TTF version, that won't work anymore if we switch to OTF under their feet. After OO.o is fixed apply the same policy as for new packages. 5. As an exception, a maintainer is allowed to use his best judgement and package both versions in a single rpm, if a user manages to convince him it's not a terribly bad idea. (but never do it by default). Bear in mind that in addition to the previously mentioned problems that will double the package size so livecd and bandwidth-constrained users won't be happy about it. But at least the packaging will be simple. 6. Since it seems several projects use different font names for the OTF and TTF variants, systematically package a fontconfig ruleset that maps the font name we do not package to the one we do. Is everyone happy with this? If you have a convincing argument to do something else please speak up now. Otherwise I'll add these rules to the wiki before the end of the week (and the start of my vacations), and probably send them FPC/FESCO side so they can be officialized. Also I propose: 7. Do not package new Type1 fonts. If someone cares about a Type1 font, he should get it converted to OpenType CFF before we consider packaging it. (though it seems Type1 is moribund enough no one has proposed new Type1 fonts in ages) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 08:51:29 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:51:29 +0300 Subject: Fwd: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> <44545.192.54.193.59.1216888276.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vasile Gaburici Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:51 AM Subject: Re: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? To: Nicolas Mailhot I agree with all your points. Regarding point 7, I'm going to emphasize, as you did previously, that conversion from Type 1 to OpenType/CFF is a non-trivial job, as the recent thread on the OpenType versions of the URW fonts has shown. So, until someone finds the significant time required to do a proper conversion, we should try to make the type-1 fonts that Fedora does ship as usable as possible *in Fedora*. Currently I can use the URW Type 1 fonts that Fedora ships for [Unicode 3.0+ encoded] Romanian *in Windows*, but not in Fedora. I'm still investigating the best way to emulate Uniscribe's solution. The issue that URW's fonts have is shared by most commercial Type 1 fonts as well. Even if Fedora doesn't ship any of those, it would not hurt to have them work in Fedora since they require the same hack that URW fonts do. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > All, > > After the discussion on two public lists, and some public and private > exchanges on IRC with people whose opinion I respect a lot, since no > one proposed a problem-free way to do dual format packaging, and many > objected to all this complexity just to work around OpenOffice.org > bugs, I propose the following simplified policy. > > 1. If upstream works with one preferred OpenType format (TTF or OTF), > use this format. > > 2. If a font is available in both TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType > CCF) formats, package the most recent and complete version. > > 3. If both formats are generated from the same source upstream, > package the OTF (OpenType CCF) version. The reason is most font > editors work with cubic splines natively, and we don't ignore CFF > hinting the way we do TT hinting (different legal context), so the OTF > version may be slightly better in our context. > > 4. For already packaged fonts, continue to package the TTF (OpenType > TT) format till OO.o is fixed. The reason is to avoid upsetting users > that already created documents using the TTF version, that won't work > anymore if we switch to OTF under their feet. After OO.o is fixed > apply the same policy as for new packages. > > 5. As an exception, a maintainer is allowed to use his best judgement > and package both versions in a single rpm, if a user manages to > convince him it's not a terribly bad idea. (but never do it by > default). Bear in mind that in addition to the previously mentioned > problems that will double the package size so livecd and > bandwidth-constrained users won't be happy about it. But at least the > packaging will be simple. > > 6. Since it seems several projects use different font names for the > OTF and TTF variants, systematically package a fontconfig ruleset that > maps the font name we do not package to the one we do. > > Is everyone happy with this? If you have a convincing argument to do > something else please speak up now. Otherwise I'll add these rules to > the wiki before the end of the week (and the start of my vacations), > and probably send them FPC/FESCO side so they can be officialized. > > Also I propose: > > 7. Do not package new Type1 fonts. If someone cares about a Type1 > font, he should get it converted to OpenType CFF before we consider > packaging it. (though it seems Type1 is moribund enough no one has > proposed new Type1 fonts in ages) > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 09:05:21 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:05:21 +0300 Subject: Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?] Message-ID: Here are some troublesome points: - Free font authors may well use non-free tools like FontLab to write them. E.g., the recent variants of Liberation Sans by Gustavo Ferreira. - Free fonts may have a source that requires free-beer tools to produce, like Adobe FDK, e.g. the TeX Gyre fonts: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/ - Free fonts may require FOSS tools that Fedora does currently ship, e.g. metatype-1 for Latin Modern: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/latin-modern. BTW, there are some issues with the lack of OTF versions of these fonts from Fedora's TeXLive, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995#c24 On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 01:11, Dave Crossland a ?crit : >> >> 2008/7/23 Martin-Gomez Pablo : >>> >>> So we need to add a suffix to the name but I'm not imaginative for >>> finding a good suffix (maybe "iced" as Nicolas propose), anyone of >>> you have an lightning idea ? >> >> Why not use a build of FF from the same time the source files were >> published? > > 1. Other fonts in the distro depend on a recent fontforge release. If > we start requiring one fontforge version per font we're dead. > > 2. While the author objects most to the current fontforge version, I'm > almost sure he'd want us to change the font name even if we used the > exact same version as his. > > As the author says, we have to stand up for our own choices. Fedora > builds its content from sources. With fonts and pretty much anything > else that means aligning on a few build tool versions which are almost > certain not to be the same upstreams tested, and if this change > introduces problems, we have to track and get them fixed. > > (but at least we know we can re-generate and patch our version at > will, unlike organisations that copy a pre-built version and have no > idea how to fix it in case of problems) > > The author's feeling is not uncommon software-side too, you know. > > I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to the > latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild every > font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent > fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. > That's what we did in previous releases. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 09:23:42 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:23:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24118.192.54.193.59.1216891422.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi, We do not "require" fonts to be built from source. We ask packagers to build font from sources when those sources are available unless they have a very good reason not to. However once upon a time, we didn't require fonts to be modifiable. When enough modifiable fonts became available policy changed (and Luxi was chucked). So I fully expect this strong preference to be changed in a requirement in a few releases once we have built a sufficent built from source font base. Font projects have those few years to adapt while the tooling matures. If some of the fonts you want depend on FLOSS build tools not in the repo now, please package those tools. That's what I did with xgridfit when I packaged edrip. -- Nicolas Mailhot From dave at lab6.com Thu Jul 24 09:56:06 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:56:06 +0100 Subject: Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2285a9d20807240256h2b7c9f7aqe0c939b163302ba3@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : > > non-free tools like FontLab ... free-beer tools like Adobe FDK That a proprietary program is distributed at zero price is not important; that it is proprietary is what matters :-) >> I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to the >> latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild every >> font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent >> fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. >> That's what we did in previous releases. This sounds okay to me, but what about fonts with sources that aren't in SFD? Nicolas, for some strange reason I'm not getting emails from you at all. Nor did I get Gustavo's recent emails, like the 'ivory tower' ones that also don't appear in http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-July/thread.html for some reason..? -- Regards, Dave From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 11:40:48 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:40:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?] In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807240256h2b7c9f7aqe0c939b163302ba3@mail.gmail.com> References: <2285a9d20807240256h2b7c9f7aqe0c939b163302ba3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4324.192.54.193.59.1216899648.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 11:56, Dave Crossland a ?crit : > > 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : >>> I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to >>> the >>> latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild >>> every >>> font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent >>> fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. >>> That's what we did in previous releases. > > This sounds okay to me, but what about fonts with sources that aren't > in SFD? Right now if a font has sources in a format that can not be processed by FLOSS tools we use the prebuilt version. Long term we'll probably have to require active font projects to change their base format, or drop them for the distro (I don't see a huge problem in shipping fonts no one updates in pre-built format. That just means the first person that does a change will have to take care of this problem). > Nicolas, for some strange reason I'm not getting emails from you at > all. I happen to send mails through the French postal service smtp servers. They have several millions of users. So every once in a while a spammer gets through. For this reason, and since it's not a well-known US brand, some neolithic blacklists regularly blackhole them (of course they wouldn't even think to do the same to yahoo or gmail, even after their capcha disaster). You're probably behind a gateway that blindly trusts such a list. You can see they do make it to Red Hat's listservers. > Nor did I get Gustavo's recent emails, like the 'ivory tower' > ones that also don't appear in > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-July/thread.html > for some reason..? Some of those posts were not CCed to public lists, and I got tired of forwarding them. I don't think anything earth-shattering was omitted. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 14:25:45 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:25:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Lun 21 juillet 2008 00:15, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > You need to trace this version to its ultimate source, talk with > fedora-legal (or spot) and convince the current package maintainer to > switch font sources Actually trying to package this OpenType CFF version http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre is probably a better idea. The font history seems clean, but one does need to check all the FLOSS license conversions are legitimate (the Gust license makes my head spin and I don't know what the differences with the GNU version we ship now are. http://www.typophile.com/node/41012 But ajax would be delighted to have another reason to drop Xorg Type1 support -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 14:33:19 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:33:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:25, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > The font history seems clean, but one does need to check all the FLOSS > license conversions are legitimate (the Gust license makes my head > spin and I don't know what the differences with the GNU version we > ship now are.) Well, there are some answers on page 8 of http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject -- Nicolas Mailhot From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 14:34:28 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:34:28 +0300 Subject: What happened to tetex-fontools? Message-ID: I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What does "Orphaned Package" mean? From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 14:55:41 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:55:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a ?crit : > > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject > > On what subject exactly? I'm missing all of the context here. Is it OK if for the gust project to relicense GPL fonts under the GUST (LPPL) license ? We need an OpenType conversion of the ghostscript fonts so we can forget about Type1. Those Polish TEX guys did one that looks good, but publish the result under another (acceptable for us) license. You see this concern on page 8 of http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 14:58:22 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:58:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <14720.192.54.193.59.1216911502.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > Chances are that these are newer incarnations of the shady package I > found. I'm saying this because Adobe's Thomas Phinney said on > typophile that the shady package most likely used Adobe FDK. As you > can see from their fea file, the gyre fonts do the same... As far as I'm concerned they can use all the proprietary tools they want as long as they do not incorporate proprietary content and their published sources can be manipulated by floss tools we can package. -- Nicolas Mailhot From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 15:00:42 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:00:42 +0300 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, and could not change the license... As you know, font "looks" cannot be copyrighted in the U.S. (not sure about Europe though). So, the main question is: can Fedora use their work? Surely, it would be interesting to know if their relicensing business is kosher, but that's secondary. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a ?crit : >> >> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >>> I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject >> >> On what subject exactly? I'm missing all of the context here. > > Is it OK if for the gust project to relicense GPL fonts under the GUST > (LPPL) license ? > > We need an OpenType conversion of the ghostscript fonts so we can > forget about Type1. Those Polish TEX guys did one that looks good, but > publish the result under another (acceptable for us) license. > > You see this concern on page 8 of > http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 15:04:22 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:04:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: What happened to tetex-fontools? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33483.192.54.193.59.1216911862.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:34, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > > I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What > does "Orphaned Package" mean? That means the previous packager lost interest, and no one took over from him, so the package was removed from the repository -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 15:08:31 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:08:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <44791.192.54.193.59.1216912111.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 17:00, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not > raw data of the URW fonts, It's based on the raw data. That's explained in their presentations. > otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, > and could not change the license... I think so too, but IANAL. I'm sure an official Fedora notification will make them relicense if necessary. -- Nicolas Mailhot From dave at lab6.com Thu Jul 24 15:23:59 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:23:59 +0100 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : > I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not > raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :( From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 15:26:01 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:26:01 +0300 Subject: Uniscribe support for locl Message-ID: I asked this on typophile beucase I saw the question mark in the DejaVu wiki, and MS has no info on their site about it. Apparently Vista and Office 2007 support locl, but it's enabled based on the "default language system" setting. I have no clue what it means, and I have neither Vista nor Office 2007, so I cannot test it. A new API must be used to enable it for a non-default language. Source: http://typophile.com/node/47683 From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 15:29:16 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:29:16 +0300 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The GPL copyright holder for the original Type 1 fonts is URW, so they would have to send GUST notice of derived work infringement. Correct? On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : >> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not >> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, > > I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :( > > From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 15:51:49 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:51:49 +0300 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <1216913466.4887.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> <1216913466.4887.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Well, in that case Fedora is in trouble already. The gyre OpenType fonts are already shipped by Fedora in a TeXLive package, just not used by pango! [vga at localhost ~]$ rpm -qif /usr/share/texmf/fonts/opentype/public/tex-gyre/texgyrepagella-regular.otf Name : texlive-texmf-fonts Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2007 Vendor: Fedora Project Release : 22.fc9 Build Date: Tue 06 May 2008 12:01:32 AM EEST Install Date: Thu 29 May 2008 08:25:36 PM EEST Build Host: ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com Group : Applications/Publishing Source RPM: texlive-texmf-2007-22.fc9.src.rpm Size : 112425640 License: Artistic 2.0 and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and LPPL and MIT and Public Domain and UCD and Utopia Signature : DSA/SHA1, Tue 06 May 2008 05:32:02 AM EEST, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager : Fedora Project URL : http://tug.org/texlive/ Summary : Font files needed for TeXLive Description : This package contains the components of the TEXMF tree needed for the texlive-fonts package. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 18:29 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> The GPL copyright holder for the original Type 1 fonts is URW, so they >> would have to send GUST notice of derived work infringement. Correct? > > To initiate legal proceedings, yes, but it doesn't mean that Fedora can > distribute it. Think of it as a stolen good. > > ~spot > > From dave at lab6.com Thu Jul 24 15:56:42 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:56:42 +0100 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> <1216913466.4887.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807240856j7133b040xc3ba97c7d5d24c66@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : > Well, in that case Fedora is in trouble already. The gyre OpenType > fonts are already shipped by Fedora in a TeXLive package, just not > used by pango! TeXLive has been stripping out non-free fonts from other TeX distributions, so perhaps those guys know more than we do. The TeX Gyre homepage at says "It aims at remaking and extending of the freely available fonts distributed with Ghostscript." 'Remaking' means they could chose their license, 'extending' means they have use the GPL. "All of the Ghostscript text font families have become "gyrefied" as the result of the project." suggests it is 'extending' though. I'm in Cork, Ireland at TUG2008 right now, so I'll ask around about this at dinner tonight... The Ghostscript fonts are pure GPL too, without the "Font Exception" - which is very annoying. From besfahbo at redhat.com Thu Jul 24 16:14:58 2008 From: besfahbo at redhat.com (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:14:58 -0400 Subject: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig In-Reply-To: <48884EA8.5060900@redhat.com> References: <48884EA8.5060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1216916098.9006.60.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Hi again, I tested your snippet and it works perfectly. It's actually a very nice trick that should be documented! I'm CC'ing fedora-fonts-list. Here's the snippet to adjust font size for a family. Meera matrix 1.20 01.2 behdad On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 15:13 +0530, Pravin Satpute wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Behdad, > > ~ I am maintainer of package smc-fonts-meera-04-6.fc9.noarch and i > want to double this fonts point size using fontconfig, i need your help > in this case. > Attaching .conf file i have created for meera font, > ~ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448078 > ~ I don't know how to test that whether it is working right or not, > alternately it will be nice if you help me in correcting this file. > ~ I will be very thankful to you for giving some time from your busy > schedule. > > > Thanks & Regards, > Pravin S > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkiITqgACgkQLTnsA10u83yKdACeMo9+3CRMgp7ccnKYdfJgL2aH > 9UsAnjkRTriDlfgLf7H0rXrzSWnbyn+B > =tW3X > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- behdad http://behdad.org/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 16:35:25 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:35:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> <1216913466.4887.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <8468.192.54.193.59.1216917325.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 17:51, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > > Well, in that case Fedora is in trouble already. The gyre OpenType > fonts are already shipped by Fedora in a TeXLive package, just not > used by pango! Oh, great I hate people that ship fonts without making a proper separate font sub-package I can check -- Nicolas Mailhot From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 18:51:04 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:51:04 +0300 Subject: What happened to tetex-fontools? In-Reply-To: <33483.192.54.193.59.1216911862.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <33483.192.54.193.59.1216911862.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: I'd like to (re)package it and be the maintainer for these tools. Before I follow the submission procedure, could someone explain to me what an appropriate replacement prefix for 'tetex' would be? I mean, Fedora isn't shipping tetex anymore, but this useful only for TeX and depends on kpsewhich (from texlive). Should I change the name to texlive-fontools or perhaps ctan-fontools? There's a fonttools (double t) that does something else... On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:34, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : >> >> I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What >> does "Orphaned Package" mean? > > That means the previous packager lost interest, and no one took over > from him, so the package was removed from the repository > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 18:55:06 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:55:06 +0300 Subject: What happened to tetex-fontools? In-Reply-To: References: <33483.192.54.193.59.1216911862.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: I found the answer on the wiki: I should call it tex-fontools. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > I'd like to (re)package it and be the maintainer for these tools. > Before I follow the submission procedure, could someone explain to me > what an appropriate replacement prefix for 'tetex' would be? I mean, > Fedora isn't shipping tetex anymore, but this useful only for TeX and > depends on kpsewhich (from texlive). Should I change the name to > texlive-fontools or perhaps ctan-fontools? There's a fonttools (double > t) that does something else... > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: >> >> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:34, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : >>> >>> I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What >>> does "Orphaned Package" mean? >> >> That means the previous packager lost interest, and no one took over >> from him, so the package was removed from the repository >> >> -- >> Nicolas Mailhot >> >> > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 19:48:32 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:48:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Fwd: Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...] Message-ID: <1574.81.64.155.27.1216928912.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> -------------------------- Message original -------------------------- Objet: Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds... De: "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" Date: Jeu 24 juillet 2008 17:15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 17:08 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > It's based on the raw data. That's explained in their presentations. > > > otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, > > and could not change the license... > > I think so too, but IANAL. I'm sure an official Fedora notification > will make them relicense if necessary. Unless they are the copyright holder (not only for the new work, but also for the original source work), they cannot relicense something from GPL to GUST. Nor should Fedora even consider including anything which is doing that. Please consider this "an official Fedora notification" that this is not appropriate. ~spot -- Nicolas Mailhot From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 19:56:03 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:56:03 +0300 Subject: Fwd: [Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst In-Reply-To: <200807241943.m6OJhhUS030899@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> References: <200807241943.m6OJhhUS030899@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Message-ID: Maybe somebody on this list is willing to sponsor me on this package: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM Subject: [Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst To: gaburici at cs.umd.edu Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 gaburici at cs.umd.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gaburici at cs.umd.edu 2008-07-24 15:43 EST ------- Btw, this is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 20:52:21 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:52:21 +0300 Subject: Had a look at Charis SIL Message-ID: It uses *lots* of multiple (ligature-type) substitutions, sprinkled with some context-based substitutions, and some single substitutions in multiple ccmp tables (some tables are class-based, some glyph based). It's unlike any of the simple stuff that Adobe or other fonts do. I wonder how they maintain all that... Does anyone know if they have their own production tools? From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 21:10:39 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:10:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages Message-ID: <1865.81.64.155.27.1216933839.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi, Given what happened there: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580 I'm proposing the following guidelines amendment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 21:22:11 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:22:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Had a look at Charis SIL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1912.81.64.155.27.1216934531.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 22:52, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > > It uses *lots* of multiple (ligature-type) substitutions, sprinkled > with some context-based substitutions, and some single substitutions > in multiple ccmp tables (some tables are class-based, some glyph > based). It's unlike any of the simple stuff that Adobe or other fonts > do. I wonder how they maintain all that... Does anyone know if they > have their own production tools? You should visit SIL's site (or read the bit of our wiki that talks about foundries). Those guys are serious about i18n and they use all the tricks in the book to manage it. They even have their own smart font tech, graphite. Adobe really does not play in the same space. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jul 24 21:26:38 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:26:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: What happened to tetex-fontools? In-Reply-To: References: <33483.192.54.193.59.1216911862.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1936.81.64.155.27.1216934798.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 20:55, Vasile Gaburici a ?crit : > I found the answer on the wiki: I should call it tex-fontools. Vasile: you should really CC the maintainers of other TEX-related packages to your bugzilla request, and make some noise on the fedora-devel mailing list about it if you want it reviewed quickly. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From dave at lab6.com Thu Jul 24 22:39:36 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:39:36 +0100 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807241539m3cc34864m1a4d020ccc9f3f64@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/24 Dave Crossland : > 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : >> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not >> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, > > I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :( Okay, I looked into it and it seems to be true. I couldn't find Hans Hagen tonight, but will email him if I can't meet him tomorrow... >From http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor I downloaded http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor/qag1.104bas.zip which has /doc/fonts/tex-gyre/README-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt which says: - - - - 8< - - - - ########################################################################### ############ The TeX Gyre Collection of Fonts ############ ############ The font Adventor ############ ########################################################################### Font: TeX Gyre Adventor Design: Herb Lubalin and Tom Carnase Authors: Bogus\l{}aw Jackowski and Janusz M. Nowacki Version: 1.104 Date: 29 II 2008 Downloads: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor License: % Copyright (URW)++, copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development. % Cyrillic glyphs added by Valek Filippov, copyright 2001-2002. % Vietnamese characters were added by Han The Thanh. % Copyright 2007 for TeX Gyre extensions by B. Jackowski and J. M. Nowacki % (on behalf of TeX Users Groups). % This work is released under the GUST Font License % -- see GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt. % This work has the LPPL maintenance status "maintained". % The Current Maintainer of this work is Bogus\l{}aw Jackowski % and Janusz M. Nowacki. % This work consists of the files listed % % in the MANIFEST-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt file. ... - - - - 8< - - - - This line: % Copyright (URW)++, copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development means this project is bankrupt :-( -- Regards, Dave I support www.gnuherds.org - democratic free software jobs From dave at lab6.com Thu Jul 24 22:44:30 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:44:30 +0100 Subject: Had a look at Charis SIL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2285a9d20807241544g5a9ac053r9a890f4082502dcf@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : > > Does anyone know if they > have their own production tools? They do, and they depend somewhat on proprietary software (FontLab) but SIL have been slowly publishing them, I think. -- Regards, Dave From dave at lab6.com Thu Jul 24 23:10:38 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:10:38 +0100 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807241539m3cc34864m1a4d020ccc9f3f64@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> <2285a9d20807241539m3cc34864m1a4d020ccc9f3f64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807241610i65598134h9f362d7e08f8c1ef@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/24 Dave Crossland : > 2008/7/24 Dave Crossland : >> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : >>> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not >>> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, >> >> I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :( > > Okay, I looked into it and it seems to be true. > http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor/qag1.104bas.zip > which has /doc/fonts/tex-gyre/README-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt which says: In fact its even more explicit in that file: "TeX Gyre Adventor is based on the URW Gothic L distributed under GPL with Ghostscript." and then "The TeX Gyre Adventor family can be freely used and distributed under the GUST Font License (see above) which is actually an instance of the LaTeX Project Public License" Madness! :-) From pravin.d.s at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 06:13:02 2008 From: pravin.d.s at gmail.com (Pravin S) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:43:02 +0530 Subject: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig In-Reply-To: <1216916098.9006.60.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <48884EA8.5060900@redhat.com> <1216916098.9006.60.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: <764372c80807242313p68929eeam9d04729b7571c951@mail.gmail.com> Hi Behdad, original source is from http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/smc/fonts/malayalam-fonts-04.1.zip just edited it for testing good to know it is working perfectly where should i submit this patch 1) to fontconfig package? or 2) will it ok to copy it to /etc/conf.d through smc-fonts package? IMO second one is not right let me know so i can do remaining things for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448078 Thanks, Pravin S 2008/7/24 Behdad Esfahbod : > Hi again, > > I tested your snippet and it works perfectly. It's actually a very nice > trick that should be documented! I'm CC'ing fedora-fonts-list. Here's > the snippet to adjust font size for a family. > > > > > > > > Meera > > > > matrix > 1.20 > 01.2 > > > > > > > > behdad > > > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 15:13 +0530, Pravin Satpute wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi Behdad, >> >> ~ I am maintainer of package smc-fonts-meera-04-6.fc9.noarch and i >> want to double this fonts point size using fontconfig, i need your help >> in this case. >> Attaching .conf file i have created for meera font, >> ~ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448078 >> ~ I don't know how to test that whether it is working right or not, >> alternately it will be nice if you help me in correcting this file. >> ~ I will be very thankful to you for giving some time from your busy >> schedule. >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Pravin S >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkiITqgACgkQLTnsA10u83yKdACeMo9+3CRMgp7ccnKYdfJgL2aH >> 9UsAnjkRTriDlfgLf7H0rXrzSWnbyn+B >> =tW3X >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > -- > behdad > http://behdad.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From vgaburici at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 07:52:03 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:52:03 +0300 Subject: Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages In-Reply-To: <1865.81.64.155.27.1216933839.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1865.81.64.155.27.1216933839.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: Not so fast. I have some details about this TeX font business, but I won't have time to write them down until this evening. On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi, > > Given what happened there: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580 > > I'm proposing the following guidelines amendment: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From vgaburici at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 08:01:29 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:01:29 +0300 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807241610i65598134h9f362d7e08f8c1ef@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> <2285a9d20807241539m3cc34864m1a4d020ccc9f3f64@mail.gmail.com> <2285a9d20807241610i65598134h9f362d7e08f8c1ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Since URW is the original copyright holder, the solution would be for URW to either relicense the fonts themselves e.g. under LPPL or OFL - whaterver FOSS license works best for fonts, or to give special permission, i.e. an exclusive license, to GUST do so... I doubt URW would care much either way after almost 20 years since these fonts have GPL'd. But they need to be approached about the matter. I guess Tom knows better what's the optimal way out in a situation like this. On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/7/24 Dave Crossland : >> 2008/7/24 Dave Crossland : >>> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : >>>> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not >>>> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, >>> >>> I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :( >> >> Okay, I looked into it and it seems to be true. >> http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor/qag1.104bas.zip >> which has /doc/fonts/tex-gyre/README-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt which says: > > In fact its even more explicit in that file: > > "TeX Gyre Adventor is based on the URW Gothic L distributed under > GPL with Ghostscript." > > and then > > "The TeX Gyre Adventor family can be freely used and distributed > under the GUST Font License (see above) which is actually > an instance of the LaTeX Project Public License" > > Madness! :-) > > From nicolas_spalinger at sil.org Fri Jul 25 09:07:37 2008 From: nicolas_spalinger at sil.org (Nicolas Spalinger) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:07:37 +0200 Subject: Had a look at Charis SIL In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807241544g5a9ac053r9a890f4082502dcf@mail.gmail.com> References: <2285a9d20807241544g5a9ac053r9a890f4082502dcf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <488997D9.6030302@sil.org> Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : >> Does anyone know if they >> have their own production tools? > > They do, and they depend somewhat on proprietary software (FontLab) > but SIL have been slowly publishing them, I think. Yes, the SIL designers and script engineers intend to publish more of the various tools used in the font production workflow (but it takes time and effort!). For example http://scripts.sil.org/FontUtils Victor Gaultney may cover this aspect during his talk at the next AtypI conference: http://atypi.org/05_Petersburg/20_main_program/view_presentation_html?presentid=465 Cheers, -- Nicolas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 09:34:10 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:34:10 +0200 Subject: The goose OpenType eggs holds... In-Reply-To: References: <1216592129.10169.2.camel@rousalka.okg> <10101.192.54.193.59.1216909545.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <45050.192.54.193.59.1216909999.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216910269.25103.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4299.192.54.193.59.1216911341.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <2285a9d20807240823j76ae3b22pe0ed08f6c07b4612@mail.gmail.com> <2285a9d20807241539m3cc34864m1a4d020ccc9f3f64@mail.gmail.com> <2285a9d20807241610i65598134h9f362d7e08f8c1ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1216978450.22751.2.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:01 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > Since URW is the original copyright holder, the solution would be for > URW to either relicense the fonts themselves e.g. under LPPL or OFL - > whaterver FOSS license works best for fonts, or to give special > permission, i.e. an exclusive license, to GUST do so... I doubt URW > would care much either way after almost 20 years since these fonts > have GPL'd. You forget that during those 20 years other people have contributed under the assumption the whole thing was GPL. Though Artifex probably demanded copyright assignment. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 09:54:47 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:54:47 +0200 Subject: Had a look at Charis SIL In-Reply-To: <488997D9.6030302@sil.org> References: <2285a9d20807241544g5a9ac053r9a890f4082502dcf@mail.gmail.com> <488997D9.6030302@sil.org> Message-ID: <1216979687.22751.9.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:07 +0200, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > Dave Crossland wrote: > > 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : > >> Does anyone know if they > >> have their own production tools? > > > > They do, and they depend somewhat on proprietary software (FontLab) > > but SIL have been slowly publishing them, I think. > > Yes, the SIL designers and script engineers intend to publish more of > the various tools used in the font production workflow (but it takes > time and effort!). For example http://scripts.sil.org/FontUtils BTW can the AL1 licensing problem of Font::TTF be fixed before spot loses patience with us font people? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Artistic1Removal > Victor Gaultney may cover this aspect during his talk at the next AtypI > conference: > http://atypi.org/05_Petersburg/20_main_program/view_presentation_html?presentid=465 Nice pointer, thanks! -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 10:03:34 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:03:34 +0200 Subject: A PackageKit browser plugin In-Reply-To: <48891924.2050904@fedoraproject.org> References: <1216924774.10458.93.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216924958.3499.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <604aa7910807241201s215ef122l341d17721b64c921@mail.gmail.com> <1216927209.10458.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> <604aa7910807241232t40a747b4k4f7b9e5cd9f0e95a@mail.gmail.com> <20080724203416.GB7475@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <48891924.2050904@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1216980214.22751.14.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 05:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Jeff Spaleta (jspaleta at gmail.com) said: > >> it? I would strongly suggest working towards replacing the current > >> interface that both contributors and users are expected to interact > >> with. If I'm going to be expected to use the existing > >> interface...while users are expected to use a new and completely > >> different interface...we've widened the communication gap..even with > >> email notifications turned on. > > > > Does anyone actually use packagedb to browse for available software? > > I have, at times. The fonts SIG maintains this wiki section http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts It would be mighty nice if we could just point to some semi-automated website instead. The problems as I see them are 1. we need info about not existing wishlist/in-review/rejected packages 2. we need some info not in pkgdb (style and unicode coverage, ideally autogenerated font png previews) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 10:18:36 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:18:36 +0200 Subject: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig In-Reply-To: <764372c80807242313p68929eeam9d04729b7571c951@mail.gmail.com> References: <48884EA8.5060900@redhat.com> <1216916098.9006.60.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <764372c80807242313p68929eeam9d04729b7571c951@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1216981116.22751.20.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:43 +0530, Pravin S wrote: > where should i submit this patch > 1) to fontconfig package? or > 2) will it ok to copy it to /etc/conf.d through smc-fonts package? > IMO second one is not right We have many packages that do that, because isuing a fontconfig update each time a maintainer wants to change a fontconfig rule for his font is frankly not scalable. As a bonus that also means fontconfig does not have to process rules for fonts not installed on the system. The whole conf.d change was made to make this kind of use possible. > 2008/7/24 Behdad Esfahbod : > > I tested your snippet and it works perfectly. It's actually a very nice > > trick that should be documented! I'm CC'ing fedora-fonts-list. Thanks but really, it's a wiki you know. Anyway: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Auto-scaling_problem_fonts Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From pravin.d.s at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 10:34:08 2008 From: pravin.d.s at gmail.com (Pravin S) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:04:08 +0530 Subject: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig In-Reply-To: <1216981116.22751.20.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <48884EA8.5060900@redhat.com> <1216916098.9006.60.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <764372c80807242313p68929eeam9d04729b7571c951@mail.gmail.com> <1216981116.22751.20.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <764372c80807250334x644a75deta03dc919ad0d2037@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/25 Nicolas Mailhot : > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:43 +0530, Pravin S wrote: > >> where should i submit this patch >> 1) to fontconfig package? or >> 2) will it ok to copy it to /etc/conf.d through smc-fonts package? >> IMO second one is not right > > We have many packages that do that, because isuing a fontconfig update > each time a maintainer wants to change a fontconfig rule for his font is > frankly not scalable. As a bonus that also means fontconfig does not > have to process rules for fonts not installed on the system. The whole > conf.d change was made to make this kind of use possible. agree, having .conf file with font package is very likely since it is for particular font, but problem can be conf.d will get overwrite after each update of fontconfig and possibility of loss of .conf files that is only problem i think > >> 2008/7/24 Behdad Esfahbod : > >> > I tested your snippet and it works perfectly. It's actually a very nice >> > trick that should be documented! I'm CC'ing fedora-fonts-list. > > Thanks but really, it's a wiki you know. Anyway: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Auto-scaling_problem_fonts > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > -- Thanks & Regards, ------------------------- Pravin Satpute The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 10:36:40 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:36:40 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages In-Reply-To: <20080724224755.GB2000@mokona.greysector.net> References: <1865.81.64.155.27.1216933839.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20080724224755.GB2000@mokona.greysector.net> Message-ID: <1216982200.22751.32.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 00:47 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 23:10, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > I'm proposing the following guidelines amendment: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages > > I'm generally in favour, but ... > [...] > 1. any package that makes use of fonts in a modern format like OpenType TT > (TTF) or OpenType CFF (OTF) MUST have them packaged separately > [...] > > ... what about fonts in other formats which happen to be included in a given > package? I don't have any specific examples, just asking. Frankly, the other font formats are so much less useful than modern font formats, the probability someone did creative legal restructuring is much lower. The big exception are Type1 fonts but I just hope they can die die die (and if the Tex-Gyre situation is fixed and we can use OTF Tex-Gyre fonts instead of all ther URW font variants we currently ship I'll propose Type1 purging from the repository). In the meanwhile, it may make sense to add Type1 to the list. For other formats, the sad truth is no one so far has volunteered writing doc on how they should be packaged, so I'm afraid no one knows how to review them. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 10:41:41 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:41:41 +0200 Subject: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig In-Reply-To: <764372c80807250334x644a75deta03dc919ad0d2037@mail.gmail.com> References: <48884EA8.5060900@redhat.com> <1216916098.9006.60.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <764372c80807242313p68929eeam9d04729b7571c951@mail.gmail.com> <1216981116.22751.20.camel@rousalka.okg> <764372c80807250334x644a75deta03dc919ad0d2037@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1216982501.22751.35.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 16:04 +0530, Pravin S wrote: > agree, > having .conf file with font package is very likely since it is for > particular font, > but problem can be > conf.d will get overwrite after each update of fontconfig and > possibility of loss of .conf files > that is only problem i think Our method of shipping separate fontconfig rules in font packages has been used in many packages for quite a long time. If it had this problem someone would have complained. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 11:21:08 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:21:08 +0300 Subject: Had a look at Charis SIL In-Reply-To: <488997D9.6030302@sil.org> References: <2285a9d20807241544g5a9ac053r9a890f4082502dcf@mail.gmail.com> <488997D9.6030302@sil.org> Message-ID: It looks like MS disagreed with Adobe on how to standardize the human-readable form of OpenType features. They have their own XML-based language, which is used by their VOLT tool. (You can download VOLT for free, but you have to be a member of their MSN group.) What's more interesting (for us) is that SIL has a command line tool, volt2ttf, that can add OpenType features written in VOLT's XML format to a TTF file. Sadly, I think that FontForge only groks Adobe's (fea) feature format, but not not MS VOLT's XML format. Quote from the SIL web page that Nicolas S. linked: volt2ttf [-a attach.xml] [-t volt.txt] infile.ttf outfile.ttf Compiles volt source into OT tables in the font. Think of this as a 3rd party command-line version of MS VOLT. On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > Dave Crossland wrote: >> >> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici : >>> >>> Does anyone know if they >>> have their own production tools? >> >> They do, and they depend somewhat on proprietary software (FontLab) >> but SIL have been slowly publishing them, I think. > > Yes, the SIL designers and script engineers intend to publish more of the > various tools used in the font production workflow (but it takes time and > effort!). For example http://scripts.sil.org/FontUtils > > Victor Gaultney may cover this aspect during his talk at the next AtypI > conference: > http://atypi.org/05_Petersburg/20_main_program/view_presentation_html?presentid=465 > > Cheers, > > -- > Nicolas > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 11:33:01 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:33:01 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages In-Reply-To: <20080725110353.GB4862@free.fr> References: <1865.81.64.155.27.1216933839.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20080724224755.GB2000@mokona.greysector.net> <1216982200.22751.32.camel@rousalka.okg> <20080725110353.GB4862@free.fr> Message-ID: <1216985581.22751.49.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:03 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36:40PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Frankly, the other font formats are so much less useful than modern font > > formats, the probability someone did creative legal restructuring is > > much lower. Anyway, I've amended the proposal in a less format-oriented version https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages > > The big exception are Type1 fonts but I just hope they can > > die die die (and if the Tex-Gyre situation is fixed and we can use OTF > I don't think this may happen in a while because some very interesting > apps (though not mainstream desktop apps, fortunately) uses type1 > fonts, mostly using t1lib, like xfig, xdvi, grace. Our TEX can use TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType CFF) now. Given that OTF (OpenType CFF) embeds something very close to what PDF uses, I'd be surprised if Ghostscript could not use the OTF TEX-Gyre fonts directly. Do we really have so much interecting stuff that depends on Type1 once TEX and GS are out of the way? > > In the meanwhile, it may make sense to add Type1 to the list. > > For tex I believe that it will be too complicated to use the system > fonts. TEX now uses the same formats as everyone else (TTF and OTF). I frankly do not think we can afford (or have the resources) to duplicate megs of fonts in TEX-specific packages. If TEX can not use the fonts in fontconfig directories, it just has to symlink them somewhere it can. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 11:43:21 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:43:21 +0200 Subject: Bullet-proof method of asking upstream for clarification? In-Reply-To: <20080725112401.GB31675@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <1216905641.22593.0.camel@victoria> <1216963317.3462.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080725112401.GB31675@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <1216986201.22751.51.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 07:24 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:21:56PM +0900, Jared Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 09:20 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > It would be nice if some non-English speakers on this list would look at > > > it. Then post to the list here to tell me if any of the text rubs you > > > the wrong way! :-) > > > > Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a non-English speaker, but > > it might be good to include a link to Fedora's licensing policy, so that > > if nothing else, this can be an educational experience for the person > > receiving an email such as this. > > Your wish is my command -- so added! ;-) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/DraftUpstreamRequestEmail I'm obviously a bad person to comment on, since my messages often go through as "undiplomatic", but can you add a line about adding a detached text license file in the same archive as the font files? Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 11:46:28 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:46:28 +0300 Subject: Had a look at Charis SIL In-Reply-To: <488997D9.6030302@sil.org> References: <2285a9d20807241544g5a9ac053r9a890f4082502dcf@mail.gmail.com> <488997D9.6030302@sil.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > Dave Crossland wrote: > > Victor Gaultney may cover this aspect during his talk at the next AtypI > conference: > http://atypi.org/05_Petersburg/20_main_program/view_presentation_html?presentid=465 Any chance of putting the slides somewhere on the net after the talk? Thomas Phinney has some AtypI '06 slides on his blog, and some where quite interesting for Fedora's Font SIG. From vgaburici at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 12:04:46 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:04:46 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] Message-ID: I did not have time finish writing all the details below, I'll write some more tonight, but before this Type 1 bashing gets out of hand, read the stuff below. If you don't want the gory details, the bottom line is that the mainstream TeX still works best with type-1 fonts. And it isn't likely to go away soon. So I would not rush to deprecate type 1 fonts, unless you want TeX users to stop using Fedora. This isn't likely to change anytime soon. XeTeX is not as robust as the old TeX, and still lacks some features next to pdftex. XeTeX's acceptance with academic publishers is virtually nil today. And they, the publishers dictate what most academics use to write papers, books etc. The mainstream TeX (and by that I mean dvips, dvipdfm and pdftex) cannot currently use OpenType/CFF, but only Type 1 (and some TeX font specialties that are irrelevant in this discussion). CFF fonts need to be converted to Type 1 using otftotfm. Several tools exist to automate the CFF to Type 1 conversion for large font families because this can be a LOT of work using otfotfm directly for fonts that have optical sizes (like the Adobe Pro series). The most notable automation tools are, in order of how complete they are: autoinst from fontools, otfinst, and otftofd. Each has some features the other lacks, however. Most notably fontools lacks optical size support. Some LaTeX packages, like MinionPro, have their own otfotfm wrapper scripts, which are a lot easier to use because some files (enc, fd) come pre-generated. Furthermore, dvips and dvipdfm cannot use TrueType fonts directly (regardless whether they have OpenType features), but can convert them to bitmap PK fonts, which print ok, but may look bad on screen. In contrast pdftex can embed TrueType as outlines in the pdf using \DeclareTruetypeFont. Unfortunately, generating the TeX infrastructure (tfm font metrics, encodings) for TrueType fonts requires MORE work than generating the Type 1 from a CFF. This happens because a different, less featured tool must be used: ttf2tfm. There are some wrappers like ttf2tex (no longer maintained), and fontinst, which is rather outdated. Autoinst (from fontools) is the only tool that handles both OpenType CFF and TrueType. Most tutorials for using TrueType with pdftex recommend using ttf2tfm directly. FYI: XeTeX uses dvipdfmx as backend, which supports all flavors of OpenType, but this requires xdv input that is not the same as the traditional dvi produced by TeX. pdftex does not produce any intermediate format. For some simple usage examples see (note - first one is XeTeX): http://existentialtype.net/2008/07/12/fonts-in-latex-part-one-xelatex/ http://existentialtype.net/2008/07/12/fonts-in-latex-part-two-pdftex-and-opentype/ http://existentialtype.net/2008/07/19/fonts-in-latex-part-three-pdftex-and-truetype/ A complex example using Gentium via ttf2tfm: http://tclab.kaist.ac.kr/ipe/pdftex_3.html To be continued... On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:03 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36:40PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> > >> > Frankly, the other font formats are so much less useful than modern font >> > formats, the probability someone did creative legal restructuring is >> > much lower. > > Anyway, I've amended the proposal in a less format-oriented version > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages > >> > The big exception are Type1 fonts but I just hope they can >> > die die die (and if the Tex-Gyre situation is fixed and we can use OTF > >> I don't think this may happen in a while because some very interesting >> apps (though not mainstream desktop apps, fortunately) uses type1 >> fonts, mostly using t1lib, like xfig, xdvi, grace. > > Our TEX can use TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType CFF) now. Given that > OTF (OpenType CFF) embeds something very close to what PDF uses, I'd be > surprised if Ghostscript could not use the OTF TEX-Gyre fonts directly. > > Do we really have so much interecting stuff that depends on Type1 once > TEX and GS are out of the way? > >> > In the meanwhile, it may make sense to add Type1 to the list. >> >> For tex I believe that it will be too complicated to use the system >> fonts. > > TEX now uses the same formats as everyone else (TTF and OTF). I frankly > do not think we can afford (or have the resources) to duplicate megs of > fonts in TEX-specific packages. If TEX can not use the fonts in > fontconfig directories, it just has to symlink them somewhere it can. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > -- > Fedora-packaging mailing list > Fedora-packaging at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 13:18:51 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:18:51 +0200 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 15:04 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > I did not have time finish writing all the details below, I'll write > some more tonight, but before this Type 1 bashing gets out of hand, > read the stuff below. If you don't want the gory details, the bottom > line is that the mainstream TeX still works best with type-1 fonts. > And it isn't likely to go away soon. Drat, and I was so happy to get rid of them :( All my other points still stand, though. ? We should not ship X versions of the same URW fonts. We should consolidate on the most recent one in OTF format. ? We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories. TEX should use system fonts directly. ? We should no ship font collections in a single package when the legal context is so dangerous, but audit each font separately. Every time someone has tried the font collection way it has finished badly. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From behdad at behdad.org Fri Jul 25 14:20:13 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Fontconfig] TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <20080725140651.655d790a.mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <20080725140651.655d790a.mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1216995613.8135.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 14:06 +0900, mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote: > > What is the advantage to pack TrueType and CFF OpenType? > I guess, the shareable contents are limited as TTC-packed > CFF OpenType, so, such request comes from the people looking > for an easy archiver of font files. Yes, I was just meaning having one file for a face. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 14:24:05 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:24:05 +0200 Subject: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <44545.192.54.193.59.1216888276.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216835988.9991.35.camel@rousalka.okg> <44545.192.54.193.59.1216888276.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1216995845.5319.1.camel@rousalka.okg> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:31 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > All, > > After the discussion on two public lists, and some public and private > exchanges on IRC with people whose opinion I respect a lot, since no > one proposed a problem-free way to do dual format packaging, and many > objected to all this complexity just to work around OpenOffice.org > bugs, I propose the following simplified policy. [?] > Is everyone happy with this? If you have a convincing argument to do > something else please speak up now. Otherwise I'll add these rules to > the wiki before the end of the week (and the start of my vacations), Done here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Choosing_the_right_font_format_to_package -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 14:26:04 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:26:04 +0200 Subject: [Fontconfig] TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216995613.8135.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <20080725140651.655d790a.mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp> <1216995613.8135.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: <1216995964.5319.3.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:20 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 14:06 +0900, mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote: > > > > What is the advantage to pack TrueType and CFF OpenType? > > I guess, the shareable contents are limited as TTC-packed > > CFF OpenType, so, such request comes from the people looking > > for an easy archiver of font files. > > Yes, I was just meaning having one file for a face. I think a TTC of TT+CFF is going to be seriously evil. But I won't stand in the way of the courageous fool that will try to inject one in the distribution. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mnowak at redhat.com Fri Jul 25 19:06:52 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fwd: Mukti fontset license In-Reply-To: <5ecce060807250948t4ba52146rff18186778816b04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2133172525.4454111217012812521.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Sayamindu Dasgupta" To: "b ghose" Cc: "Michal Nowak" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:48:40 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna Subject: Re: Mukti fontset license On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Michal Nowak wrote: >> ping? >> >> On 10:11 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Fedora Linux distribution considered packaging Your Mukti fontset, >>> but we found out that the license is GPLv2+, which we consider as >>> excellent for software but not for fonts. >>> >>> The problem we see is that when you embed the font inside PDF file >>> then the whole document has to be licensed as a GPLv2+ too. This is >>> thought to be controversial. >>> >>> Do you think it can be possible to change the license to e.g. 'GPLv2+ >>> + Font Exception'? The Exception would be this one: >>> >>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException >>> >>> Which just says that just embedding the font does not mean that you >>> have to license your file (e.g. book) as GPLv2+ too. >>> >>> Let me know whay you think. >>> >>> Looking forward to your reply. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Michal > > Sayamindu, can you kindly contact the author of Mukti and coordinate this? > I have tried to do this earlier - did not get any response from him. Will try again. -sdg- -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] -- Michal Nowak BaseOS QE (Apps/Toolchain sub-group) Engineer From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 19:23:43 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:23:43 +0200 Subject: [OT] Re: Fwd: Mukti fontset license In-Reply-To: <2133172525.4454111217012812521.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <2133172525.4454111217012812521.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1217013823.10704.5.camel@rousalka.okg> > >> On 10:11 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Fedora Linux distribution considered packaging Your Mukti fontset, > >>> but we found out that the license is GPLv2+, which we consider as > >>> excellent for software but not for fonts. [?] Michal, I think we're all very impressed by the writing of the messages you sent to various font projects. If you have the time, please contribute some of it to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/DraftUpstreamRequestEmail You seem quite capable of helping make it a terrific template. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 19:42:32 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:42:32 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > ? We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories. > TEX should use system fonts directly. XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that violates TDS. If you don't what that means, then don't take on the subject of TeX fonts. From vgaburici at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 19:45:49 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:45:49 +0300 Subject: [Fontconfig] TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1216995964.5319.3.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <39400.192.54.193.58.1216803225.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1216828305.16806.11.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216834101.9991.11.camel@rousalka.okg> <1216835398.4118.17.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <20080725140651.655d790a.mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp> <1216995613.8135.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1216995964.5319.3.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: Are you sure this is a valid TTC? I thought it can contain only TrueType fonts (possibly with OpenType features). On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:20 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 14:06 +0900, mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote: >> > >> > What is the advantage to pack TrueType and CFF OpenType? >> > I guess, the shareable contents are limited as TTC-packed >> > CFF OpenType, so, such request comes from the people looking >> > for an easy archiver of font files. >> >> Yes, I was just meaning having one file for a face. > > I think a TTC of TT+CFF is going to be seriously evil. But I won't stand > in the way of the courageous fool that will try to inject one in the > distribution. > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From dave at lab6.com Fri Jul 25 19:50:51 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:50:51 +0100 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807251250y22d13d78p77bd27bfaa338e3a@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici : > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: >> ? We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories. >> TEX should use system fonts directly. > > XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that violates TDS. > If you don't what that means, then don't take on the subject of TeX > fonts. I second the idea that TeX ought to be an exception to the guideline "not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories"; TeX predates all other programs in a GNU/Linux system, and TeX users have hardended expectations about how it works; if Fedora's TeX package fiddles with things, that will be a loss for users. (I'm still not getting Nicolas' emails :-( From vgaburici at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 20:18:01 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:18:01 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807251250y22d13d78p77bd27bfaa338e3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <2285a9d20807251250y22d13d78p77bd27bfaa338e3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici : > I second the idea that TeX ought to be an exception to the guideline > "not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories"; TeX > predates all other programs in a GNU/Linux system, and TeX users have > hardended expectations about how it works; if Fedora's TeX package > fiddles with things, that will be a loss for users. If Fedora ships a screwed-up TeX, it would incur a loss of users, mostly of PAYING academic ones that buy RHEL through their departments, like UMD's CS dept., which just finished a big upgrade of all the CS RHEL machines... FYI: Macs are already the preferred choice for laptops amongst my colleagues, because the can run both Unix apps and Powerpoint hassle-free (OOo is still pathetic for presentations, and not everyone has the patience that Beamer requires, especially for graphics). Back to the technical side, a font for TeX requires a tfm file (TeX font metrics). To use it with LaTeX you also need a fd file, an sometimes a sty with macros is provided, especially if the font has features. These files don't really belong the the system fonts directory because nothing but TeX can use them... So, for fubu-fonts, you'd need an extra fubu-fonts-tex, or possible even a fubu-fonts-latex package to hold the extra files (you need the latter if you consider that latex is not required to use plain tex). What I would like to see system fonts installing themselves for TeX use, say via an autoinst postinst script. Like I said my "draft" email, that's a lot of hassle for the users to do manually. That's why I'm trying to get fontools resurected... Also, the current texlive package has inconsistent rules for font formats. The Gyre fonts are included as OTF, while the LM (Latin Modern) are not, even though XeTeX needs them that way if you wan to select them as non-default fonts. I suspect this didn't originate from upstream. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 21:20:34 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:20:34 +0200 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807251250y22d13d78p77bd27bfaa338e3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <2285a9d20807251250y22d13d78p77bd27bfaa338e3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1217020834.11706.5.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 20:50 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici : > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Nicolas Mailhot > > wrote: > >> ? We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories. > >> TEX should use system fonts directly. > > > > XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that violates TDS. > > If you don't what that means, then don't take on the subject of TeX > > fonts. > > I second the idea that TeX ought to be an exception to the guideline > "not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories"; TeX > predates all other programs in a GNU/Linux system, and TeX users have > hardended expectations about how it works; if Fedora's TeX package > fiddles with things, that will be a loss for users. We're under a *nix. The TEX packagers can symlink the files to TEX internal directories if that makes TEX users feel better. Though we've been resorbing various private font repositories in the past years (starting with the xorg ones) and mid term I don't see how TEX can escape the trend. That's the bad thing of switching to a common font format. (The good thing being of course that you get access to the fonts other groups provide) > (I'm still not getting Nicolas' emails :-( I'm routing lab6.com through another smtp now. Of course that won't change mails sent directly to the list. Someone is blackholing me between Red Hat servers and yours. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jul 25 21:33:08 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:08 +0200 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <2285a9d20807251250y22d13d78p77bd27bfaa338e3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1217021588.11706.17.camel@rousalka.okg> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 23:18 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > 2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici : > > I second the idea that TeX ought to be an exception to the guideline > > "not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories"; TeX > > predates all other programs in a GNU/Linux system, and TeX users have > > hardended expectations about how it works; if Fedora's TeX package > > fiddles with things, that will be a loss for users. > > If Fedora ships a screwed-up TeX, it would incur a loss of users, > mostly of PAYING academic ones that buy RHEL through their > departments, like UMD's CS dept., which just finished a big upgrade of > all the CS RHEL machines... Oh, please, I heard the same bogus arguments from Java people when we started integrating Java under Linux at JPackage. I was not the "Java way" (the "Java way" being whatever screwed up setup SUN historically used). There would be a loss of users. Etc, etc A few year forward SUN was quoting JPackage in all its Linux press releases and trying to catch up with us. There is no reason to fear changes when those changes are sound engineering. > Back to the technical side, a font for TeX requires a tfm file (TeX > font metrics). To use it with LaTeX you also need a fd file, an > sometimes a sty with macros is provided, especially if the font has > features. These files don't really belong the the system fonts > directory because nothing but TeX can use them... And thus TEX can keep them. But the common resources (OpenType fonts), it gets to share them with the rest of the system, which means installation in system dirs. > What I would like to see system fonts installing themselves for TeX > use, say via an autoinst postinst script. You're welcome to propose amendments to our current font packaging policy. We have no TEX rules right now because no TEX user was interested in writing them and other people obviously couldn't. The main requirements are: 1. The font specs must be kept simple (ie no complex in-spec scripting) 2. A font package can not require any specific font system on install. It's only allowed to use one if already present, and it's the font system responsability to discover resources that were installed before it was on system. (same proposal to bitmap users that complain of anti-bitmap ostracism) > Like I said my "draft" > email, that's a lot of hassle for the users to do manually. That's why > I'm trying to get fontools resurected... > > Also, the current texlive package has inconsistent rules for font > formats. The Gyre fonts are included as OTF, while the LM (Latin > Modern) are not, even though XeTeX needs them that way if you wan to > select them as non-default fonts. I suspect this didn't originate from > upstream. I can't comment on this part. For me they're all wrong. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Jul 26 11:25:02 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:25:02 +0200 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> Message-ID: <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> Hi, I'm afraid these answers are utterly unconvincing. I've just checked Debian made the very same analysis as us, and you're on your way to get yourself blacklisted in all major Linux distributions. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/texlive-extra/+bug/135911/comments/3 In case that's not clear enough, you have a problem. On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:48 +0200, Hans Hagen wrote: > Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > Dear Hans, > > > > Some legal concerns have arisen regarding the licensing of the TeX > > Gyre fonts - please see > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580. In particular, > > this part is most relevant: > > > > 2. The textlive-texfm includes tex-gyre fonts. As the authors freely > > admit they lifted the GNU Ghostscript GPL fonts, changed their format, > > modified the result, > > and relicensed it all under their own license [1]. They don't list any > > authorization for this from the previous rights holders in their > > package. Since we can not ship the GPL bits they lifted under another > > license, and we can not ship the bits they added under the GPL without > > tex-gyre people authorization, the whole thing is un-distributable and > > must be removed [2] > > > > [1] page 8 of http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf > > [2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-July/msg00111.html > > > > I wonder if you would take a few moments to look at this and comment > > on the correctness of the analysis and help to resolve these issues? I > > am sure you'd agree with me that resolving this is important for the > > TeX Gyre project, and free software fonts in general. > > > > Finally, in case it's not clear, I'd just like to point out that I am > > *not* contacting you in my capacity as chair of the UKTUG funding > > sub-committee in this instance, but as a member of UKTUG, and also a > > Fedora contributor. Nonetheless, as a UKTUG member I would not be > > happy to think that UKTUG is financially supporting a project which is > > in violation of the GPL, if that is indeed the case. > > a short reply (i have to catch up many mails after the tug conference) > > - the gust font licence is mostly the lppl licence which is accepted as ok Irrelevant. We are not complaining about the Gust font license we are complaining about re-licensing without previuous authors authorization. > - the main 'additions' concern packaging (file names, internal font > names, etc. since any simple replacement/extension can mess up doc > production and could put a stress on user group support), which is an > important issue for tex distributions That's still a lot of work. We respect licensing regardless of the size of the contribution > - gpl is targeted at programs and fonts are not exactly programs Given the number of fonts we ship under GPL, LGPL or derived licenses (including Liberation), this argument is not receivable. "I don't like this license I'll just use another and no one's the wiser" ? you're not serious. > - we try to contact e.g. urw on some other issues (it's currently not > even clear of some of the fonts were ever legally gpl'd!) but they don't > react (such a kind of 'disappearing responsibility' happened before with > some other font where eventually responsibility was transfered to tug) You can not work just with URW. The right contacts are Artifex and all the people who contributed to the fonts since their release. > - some of the 'original' fonts contain additions of rather poor quality > (greek and cyrillic) and when/how they ended up in there withoput any > quality assurance is unclear, so in general one can say that these fonts > have a somewhat fuzzy history Quality as nothing to do with licensing. You can make bad contributions under a good license, and good contributions under a bad license. We can ship the first but not the other. > we're currently convinced that eveything is ok with respect to the > licence (btw, the amount of changes to the fonts are pretty large so one > might as well wonder if we're dealing with new digitizations) Again, this is the kind of fuzzy logic that can not stand legaly. > Jerzy might have a more detailed answer since he's in charge of the > licencing -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From behdad at behdad.org Sat Jul 26 16:49:30 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:49:30 -0400 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 22:42 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > > XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that violates TDS. > If you don't what that means, then don't take on the subject of TeX > fonts. Symlinks? -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Jul 27 10:09:24 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:09:24 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: FarsiWeb fonts] Message-ID: <1217153364.25486.0.camel@rousalka.okg> -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Behdad Esfahbod To: Nicolas Mailhot Subject: FarsiWeb fonts Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:55:18 -0400 Hey, Who should I bribe to get farsiweb-fonts packaged? http://www.farsiweb.ir/wiki/Persian_fonts Cheers, -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 10:40:52 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:40:52 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: I had a look the TDS (http://www.ctan.org/get/tds/tds.pdf). Nothing written there prevents the use of symlinks. In fact their not even mentioned because TDS is supposed work even on MSDOS. The question is if it will actually work if we do that. I guess Jindrich Novy, the texlive packaged owner knows better than any of us, so I'm cc-ing him. So, Jindrich, the question is whether ripping out the TeX fonts formats that are usable by the system at large (via freetype etc.), and replacing them with symlinks in the TDS is going to work? A potential problem that I see is that if texlive gets installed after some fonts it needs to figure out and link to them... On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 22:42 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> >> XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that violates TDS. >> If you don't what that means, then don't take on the subject of TeX >> fonts. > > Symlinks? > > -- > behdad > http://behdad.org/ > > "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little > Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." > -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Jul 27 11:08:12 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:08:12 +0200 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 13:40 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > I had a look the TDS (http://www.ctan.org/get/tds/tds.pdf). Nothing > written there prevents the use of symlinks. In fact their not even > mentioned because TDS is supposed work even on MSDOS. The question is > if it will actually work if we do that. I guess Jindrich Novy, the > texlive packaged owner knows better than any of us, so I'm cc-ing him. It seems the tex-fonts-hebrew at least provides TEX context for some system fonts http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/tex-fonts-hebrew/tex-fonts-hebrew.spec So proper packaging of Type1, TTF and OTF fonts would probably be something like this 1. normal foo-fonts system package that can be used by any font system, including TEX 2. tex-foo-fonts or foo-texfonts package that depends on foo-fonts and adds additionnal TEX files (without duplicating the font files themselves), with symlinks or references or whatever works in TEX 3. master TEX comps group or package that assembles all the foo-texfonts packages. Of course I know next to nothing about TEX so I'd be a lot happier if people like Jonathan Underwood wrote the whole TEX font packaging rules in my stead. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 11:45:06 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:45:06 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: The TeXNaming draft guidelines [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming] seem to indicate that "tex" should go before the package name. E.g. tex-foo-fonts, and perhaps latex-foo-fonts as well. I don't know if ConTeXt needs any special bits for fonts, but in Fedora it gets packaged separately as texlive-context. The only bit that surely doesn't need anything special is texlive-xetex, which can use the system fonts. A minor issue: dvipdfm and dvipdfmx don't have a tex prefix in their package names, even though both put files in the system texmf tree. I don't know if they're usable without TeX installed, but I kinda doubt it... There draft guidelines say that there are several ways to specify the "Requires:" for TeX. But on a recent review, I got this: ? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . The Requires for texlive-latex should be replaced with Requires: tex(latex) The sooner this gets sorted out the better... On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 13:40 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> I had a look the TDS (http://www.ctan.org/get/tds/tds.pdf). Nothing >> written there prevents the use of symlinks. In fact their not even >> mentioned because TDS is supposed work even on MSDOS. The question is >> if it will actually work if we do that. I guess Jindrich Novy, the >> texlive packaged owner knows better than any of us, so I'm cc-ing him. > > It seems the tex-fonts-hebrew at least provides TEX context for some > system fonts > http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/tex-fonts-hebrew/tex-fonts-hebrew.spec > > So proper packaging of Type1, TTF and OTF fonts would probably be > something like this > 1. normal foo-fonts system package that can be used by any font system, > including TEX > 2. tex-foo-fonts or foo-texfonts package that depends on foo-fonts and > adds additionnal TEX files (without duplicating the font files > themselves), with symlinks or references or whatever works in TEX > 3. master TEX comps group or package that assembles all the foo-texfonts > packages. > > Of course I know next to nothing about TEX so I'd be a lot happier if > people like Jonathan Underwood wrote the whole TEX font packaging rules > in my stead. > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > From jonathan.underwood at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 13:20:11 2008 From: jonathan.underwood at gmail.com (Jonathan Underwood) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:20:11 +0100 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/27 Vasile Gaburici : > The TeXNaming draft guidelines > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming] seem to > indicate that "tex" should go before the package name. E.g. > tex-foo-fonts, and perhaps latex-foo-fonts as well. I don't know if > ConTeXt needs any special bits for fonts, but in Fedora it gets > packaged separately as texlive-context. The only bit that surely > doesn't need anything special is texlive-xetex, which can use the > system fonts. > > A minor issue: dvipdfm and dvipdfmx don't have a tex prefix in their > package names, even though both put files in the system texmf tree. I > don't know if they're usable without TeX installed, but I kinda doubt > it... > Yes, that should maybe be fixed up, and one could also make the same argument for xdvik, I suppose. The notion of prefixing with tex- was really meant for addon class file packages for tex, rather than binary programs. But I see your point entirely. > There draft guidelines say that there are several ways to specify the > "Requires:" for TeX. But on a recent review, I got this: > ? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > The Requires for texlive-latex should be replaced with Requires: tex(latex) > > The sooner this gets sorted out the better... > Yes, it's a mess, and now it's starting to impact progress with resolving the font issues. I had started to make some headway with packaging guidelines a while back, and Patrice had also tackled it, but between us we've dropped the ball. In actual fact, the reason that I had made little headway is that when you start to look at the problem carefully you start to realize that it's a bit of a mistake for Fedora to be repackaging the texlive distribution rather than packaging the individual upstream projects. However, texlive does provide some really handy package integration that we rely on, so we need to make use of that work. We've slowly been making some progress splitting things out, but there's not many packagers who seem to care much about TeX, alas. Anyway, here's some things I see as a bit of a priority: 1) Form a TeX SIG. 2) Get some TeX packaging guidelines in place 3) Work with the fonts SIG to resolve the fonts mess. Regarding 3, it seems to me that there's in principle nothing technically stopping us moving in the direction that Nicholas paints as desireable regarding proper system integration of the fonts (and Nicholas is right to push for this). The approach I could imagine working is roughly this: For each font, create a standalone package which installs the font in the system fonts directory, foo-fonts. During package building that package would create and install the necessary symlinks and auxillary files needed by tex (font metric files etc) and package them in a subpackage, tex-foo-fonts (or maybe foo-fonts-tex). The texlive-texmf-fonts package would then just require all of these tex-foo-fonts packages. The tex-fontools will be really usefully for taking care of this at package build time, so I am really glad that Vasile Gaburici is moving that forward (and the lcdf-typetools packaging). I think this is a better approach than using scriplets to do the same thing at font install time if tex is installed. Of course, until we actually try implementing such an approach, it'll not become clear what the complications are. I have to admit, I'm not massively familiar with the font packaging process in Fedora, but have been reading through the wiki pages and looking at packages this weekend - in fact I hadn't really wanted to raise a proposal until I had a better and more complete understanding of the problem space, but Nicholas' email has spurred me on a bit. What do folks think? And I guess, more importantly, who's up for some work? :) Jonathan. From jonstanley at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 14:50:56 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:50:56 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: FarsiWeb fonts] In-Reply-To: <1217153364.25486.0.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <1217153364.25486.0.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: I'll take this. First item of business is to contact upstream to check on a possible relicensing from GPL to GPL+exception (either way it's acceptable, GPL+Exception is preferred) On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Behdad Esfahbod > To: Nicolas Mailhot > Subject: FarsiWeb fonts > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:55:18 -0400 > > Hey, > > Who should I bribe to get farsiweb-fonts packaged? > > http://www.farsiweb.ir/wiki/Persian_fonts > > Cheers, > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > -- Jon Stanley Fedora Bug Wrangler jstanley at fedoraproject.org From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 14:54:31 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:54:31 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I need to digest this a bit more, but a quick note regarding the (in)abilities of the automated TeX font tools is in order. Some important TeX fonts like Latin Modern (also from GUST), cannot be be currently correctly installed by autoinst. There are two obstacles: - lack of optical size info in the Latin Modern OTFs (no OpenType 'size' tag) - lack of support for optical sizes in autoinst. There's another tool called otfinst (also a wrapper for lcdf-typetools) that can handle optical size info if it is present in the OTF. But otfinst lacks a bunch of other features that autoinst has (no .fd generation, no TTF flavor of OpenType support). At some point I hope to port the opical size support to autoinst, but these tools are written in different languages, so it will take a while. So, Fedora would still have to ship TeX font files separately (for some fonts) until the tool set and upstream OTF packaging matures. But for mundane OTF fonts, which don't have optical sizes, I don't see serious show stoppers for the proposal to (i) generate their .tfm TeX metrics automatically, and (ii) convert them to type 1 on the user's machine. These to jobs could be handled by a simple invocation of autoinst (with some parameters, like telling it if the font is serif or not). So, for most fonts the foo-font-tex package could be just some emtpy dirs and a %post invocation of autoinst. This method needs some testing with various fonts before we commit to it. TrueType fonts can be used used without conversion by pdftex, but TeX metrics still have to be generated. Other TeX drivers, like dvips and dvipdfm, can use TrueType fonts only if they are converted to bitmaps; I don't think this is worth the hassle since the output would suck on screen. Btw, if you've never heard of Latin Modern -- it is the Computer Modern extension to non-English western alphabets. XeTeX, since it supports only UTF-8 input, uses Latin Modern as default font. There's another package, called cm-super, that attempts the same feat, but it uses autotraced fonts, so it's generally considered of inferior quality. The guys from GUST wrote a tool called METATYPE1 which allows them to compile METAPOST into type 1 fonts without autotracing. Latin Modern is written in METATYPE1. Don't ask me if they had permission from Knuth to do this... On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > 2008/7/27 Vasile Gaburici : >> The TeXNaming draft guidelines >> [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming] seem to >> indicate that "tex" should go before the package name. E.g. >> tex-foo-fonts, and perhaps latex-foo-fonts as well. I don't know if >> ConTeXt needs any special bits for fonts, but in Fedora it gets >> packaged separately as texlive-context. The only bit that surely >> doesn't need anything special is texlive-xetex, which can use the >> system fonts. >> >> A minor issue: dvipdfm and dvipdfmx don't have a tex prefix in their >> package names, even though both put files in the system texmf tree. I >> don't know if they're usable without TeX installed, but I kinda doubt >> it... >> > > Yes, that should maybe be fixed up, and one could also make the same > argument for xdvik, I suppose. The notion of prefixing with tex- was > really meant for addon class file packages for tex, rather than binary > programs. But I see your point entirely. > >> There draft guidelines say that there are several ways to specify the >> "Requires:" for TeX. But on a recent review, I got this: >> ? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . >> The Requires for texlive-latex should be replaced with Requires: tex(latex) >> >> The sooner this gets sorted out the better... >> > > Yes, it's a mess, and now it's starting to impact progress with > resolving the font issues. I had started to make some headway with > packaging guidelines a while back, and Patrice had also tackled it, > but between us we've dropped the ball. > > In actual fact, the reason that I had made little headway is that when > you start to look at the problem carefully you start to realize that > it's a bit of a mistake for Fedora to be repackaging the texlive > distribution rather than packaging the individual upstream projects. > However, texlive does provide some really handy package integration > that we rely on, so we need to make use of that work. We've slowly > been making some progress splitting things out, but there's not many > packagers who seem to care much about TeX, alas. > > Anyway, here's some things I see as a bit of a priority: > > 1) Form a TeX SIG. > 2) Get some TeX packaging guidelines in place > 3) Work with the fonts SIG to resolve the fonts mess. > > > Regarding 3, it seems to me that there's in principle nothing > technically stopping us moving in the direction that Nicholas paints > as desireable regarding proper system integration of the fonts (and > Nicholas is right to push for this). The approach I could imagine > working is roughly this: > > For each font, create a standalone package which installs the font in > the system fonts directory, foo-fonts. During package building that > package would create and install the necessary symlinks and auxillary > files needed by tex (font metric files etc) and package them in a > subpackage, tex-foo-fonts (or maybe foo-fonts-tex). The > texlive-texmf-fonts package would then just require all of these > tex-foo-fonts packages. The tex-fontools will be really usefully for > taking care of this at package build time, so I am really glad that > Vasile Gaburici is moving that forward (and the lcdf-typetools > packaging). I think this is a better approach than using scriplets to > do the same thing at font install time if tex is installed. > > Of course, until we actually try implementing such an approach, it'll > not become clear what the complications are. I have to admit, I'm not > massively familiar with the font packaging process in Fedora, but have > been reading through the wiki pages and looking at packages this > weekend - in fact I hadn't really wanted to raise a proposal until I > had a better and more complete understanding of the problem space, but > Nicholas' email has spurred me on a bit. > > What do folks think? And I guess, more importantly, who's up for some work? :) > > Jonathan. > > From jonstanley at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 14:59:57 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:59:57 -0400 Subject: FarsiWeb Font licensing Message-ID: Hello, I'm interested in packaging the FarsiWeb fonts for Fedora, and I noticed that the license of the fonts is GPL. Would you consider adding the font exception as described here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException Basically what this exception allows is for the font or portions of it to be embedded, unmodified, in other documents (for example a PDF) without causing that document to come under the scope of the GPL. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. -Jon From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Jul 27 16:08:29 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:08:29 +0200 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1217174909.1480.11.camel@rousalka.okg> On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 14:20 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > In actual fact, the reason that I had made little headway is that when > you start to look at the problem carefully you start to realize that > it's a bit of a mistake for Fedora to be repackaging the texlive > distribution rather than packaging the individual upstream projects. I totally agree with this assessment > Anyway, here's some things I see as a bit of a priority: > > 1) Form a TeX SIG. > 2) Get some TeX packaging guidelines in place > 3) Work with the fonts SIG to resolve the fonts mess. As long as what you do is text and font-related, you're welcome to work within the Fonts SIG IMHO. Because in case you have noticed, setting up a SIG and making it visible enough to influence upstreams is a lot of work. [OT We're listened to because we have a internet wiki presence so please everyone do take care to fill and update the wiki pages associated to your font packages. I know it's no fun stuff but it helps a lot.] Of course that shouldn't stop you for setting a separate SIG if you feel like it and have the necessary manpower. SIGs are fun. > Of course, until we actually try implementing such an approach, it'll > not become clear what the complications are. That's usually the case. It's an incrementatal ooops-brownpaper-bag-decision process. :p > I have to admit, I'm not > massively familiar with the font packaging process in Fedora, but have > been reading through the wiki pages and looking at packages this > weekend - in fact I hadn't really wanted to raise a proposal until I > had a better and more complete understanding of the problem space, but > Nicholas' email has spurred me on a bit. > > What do folks think? And I guess, more importantly, who's up for some work? :) I obviously am already taken by other stuff, and I'll be away for a month starting tomorrow, but I can offer the Fonts SIG infrastructure. I do think TUG has the potential to be a big font provider, and there's a lot of crossover between the Fonts SIG and what you want to do, so that would be good for everyone. Of course I don't speak for everyone in the SIG, so, people, if you don't want TEX messages to crowd the list, please speak up now. Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 16:25:10 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:25:10 +0300 Subject: Fwd: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> <645d17210807270759h6d383a44o654d86b011e586a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Forwarding to the lists what I've just sent Jonathan... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vasile Gaburici Date: Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:23 PM To: Jonathan Underwood On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > 2008/7/27 Vasile Gaburici : >> So, Fedora would still have to ship TeX font files separately (for >> some fonts) until the tool set and upstream OTF packaging matures. But >> for mundane OTF fonts, which don't have optical sizes, I don't see >> serious show stoppers for the proposal to (i) generate their .tfm TeX >> metrics automatically, and (ii) convert them to type 1 on the user's >> machine. > > Why do (ii) on the users machine instead of at package build time? Nicolas had some concerns on the size of font packages we ship, especially when duplication is involved. I agree that doing the work on the user's machine is somewhat contrary to the idea of RPM... BTW, generating the tfm takes far more time and space. An extreme example is MinionPro (full commercial set, from Adobe): - OTFs: 10Mb - PFBs: 20Mb - TFMs: 180Mb A single type 1 pfb file can contain more than 256 glyphs, but these are addressable only by AGL (Adobe Glyph List) name. Traditinoal TeX encodings (T1, LY1) are limited to 256 glyphs per font, so in order to access all glyphs (e.g. small caps, lining figures) multiple tfm files are generated for the same pfb. This wouldn't be much of a problem if the tfm files didn't ALSO have to contain the kerning info! Take the class-based kerning info from the OTF and make it pairwise, then put overlapping subsets in multiple encodings and the disk usage explodes... Sadly TeX cannot use Adobe's afm file format which could at least store all the kerning pairs without duplication. Btw, Linux Libertine or DejaVu have more glyphs than MinionPro... > These to jobs could be handled by a simple invocation of >> autoinst (with some parameters, like telling it if the font is serif >> or not). So, for most fonts the foo-font-tex package could be just >> some emtpy dirs and a %post invocation of autoinst. This method needs >> some testing with various fonts before we commit to it. >> > > Again - why not use autoinst during package build time? If Nicholas doesn't object, I surely don't. It would be a lot easier to control what happens. >> TrueType fonts can be used used without conversion by pdftex, but TeX >> metrics still have to be generated. Other TeX drivers, like dvips and >> dvipdfm, can use TrueType fonts only if they are converted to bitmaps; >> I don't think this is worth the hassle since the output would suck on >> screen. > > I agree they suck.. but, not doing so would be a problem for legacy > users, I fear... I doubt any legacy user uses ?TrueType? fonts while generating PostScript from TeX. Most legacy users that still rely on PostScript output stick with Type 1 fonts, usually those that come with TeX (Computer Modern, standard 35 PostScript fonts), because these can be embedded as outlines in PostScript. Using TrueType fonts in TeX for PostSript output is no different than using METAFONT fonts: PK bitmaps have to be generated at the output resolution. Now, TeX doesn't ship any bitmap PK fonts when METAFONT sources are available. TeX generates (and caches) them as needed. Remember the old days when you had to wait for "kpathsea: Running mktexpk --mfmode ..." I'm not aware of any program that can do the magic for TrueType fonts, but I haven't used TrueType fonts for PostScript output either. My point is that PK bitmap generation is not something we want to do at packaging time! -- Vasile From vgaburici at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 16:57:50 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:57:50 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: <1217174909.1480.11.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> <1217174909.1480.11.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 14:20 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > >> In actual fact, the reason that I had made little headway is that when >> you start to look at the problem carefully you start to realize that >> it's a bit of a mistake for Fedora to be repackaging the texlive >> distribution rather than packaging the individual upstream projects. > > I totally agree with this assessment Well, the trouble is that there's no Linux/Unix TeX distro like MiKTeX, which has a nice *modular* packaging system. I'd rather have a Fedora-style TeX distro with frequent updates that TeXLive's once a year monolithic disk image. There's a beta version of MiKTeX's packaging tool (mpm) for Linux [http://blog.miktex.org/post/2005/08/mpmunix.aspx], but so far nobody made a Linux TeX distro using it. And that's a lot of work, so I'm not signing up for it on my current schedule... From mnowak at redhat.com Mon Jul 28 17:52:02 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Font Exception thoughts Was: Mukti fontset license In-Reply-To: <509456584.526121217267407771.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <108225536.526281217267522724.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> ----- "Nicolas Mailhot" wrote: > Michal, > > I think we're all very impressed by the writing of the messages you > sent > to various font projects. If you have the time, please contribute > some > of it to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/DraftUpstreamRequestEmail > > You seem quite capable of helping make it a terrific template. Good idea Nicolas, just contributed few thoughts and 'd appreciate review from the list. https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APfrields%2FDraftUpstreamRequestEmail&diff=41983&oldid=41486 -- Michal Nowak BaseOS QE (Apps/Toolchain sub-group) Engineer From vgaburici at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 08:32:49 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:32:49 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> <645d17210807270759h6d383a44o654d86b011e586a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Jonathan Underwood >>> TrueType fonts can be used used without conversion by pdftex, but TeX >>> metrics still have to be generated. Other TeX drivers, like dvips and >>> dvipdfm, can use TrueType fonts only if they are converted to bitmaps; >>> I don't think this is worth the hassle since the output would suck on >>> screen. >> >> I agree they suck.. but, not doing so would be a problem for legacy >> users, I fear... > > I doubt any legacy user uses ?TrueType? fonts while generating > PostScript from TeX. Most legacy users that still rely on PostScript > output stick with Type 1 fonts, usually those that come with TeX > (Computer Modern, standard 35 PostScript fonts), because these can be > embedded as outlines in PostScript. Using TrueType fonts in TeX for > PostSript output is no different than using METAFONT fonts: PK bitmaps > have to be generated at the output resolution. Now, TeX doesn't ship > any bitmap PK fonts when METAFONT sources are available. TeX generates > (and caches) them as needed. Remember the old days when you had to > wait for "kpathsea: Running mktexpk --mfmode ..." I'm not aware of any > program that can do the magic for TrueType fonts, but I haven't used > TrueType fonts for PostScript output either. My point is that PK > bitmap generation is not something we want to do at packaging time! There is actually a way to embed TrueType fonts in PostScript as outlines: Type 42 is a container that gets sent to the printer as-is; the printer's PS interpreter needs to be able to handle Type 42 fonts though. AFAICT ghostscript supports type 42. There are even some FOSS tools to covert between TrueType and Type 42. It seems nobody bothered to automate the process for dvips though. http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jec/programs/xfsft/printing.html http://cg.scs.carleton.ca/~luc/type42.html From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 09:59:33 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:59:33 +0300 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: It looks to me like the GUST fokes did their best, but they're not a big company, so they ignored some legal aspects. Rather than telling them they're about to get blacklisted, perhaps a more constructive approach is in order. Below are the copyright messages included with (i) Nimubus No.9 Regular 1.06 in Type 1 format, as shipped by Fedora 9, and (ii) TeX Gyre Termes Regular 1.011, which is derived from Nimbus, also currently shipped by Fedora: Copyright \050URW\051++,Copyright 1999 by \050URW\051++ Design & Development; Cyrillic glyphs added by Valek Filippov \050C\051 2001-2005 Copyright (URW)++, copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development; Cyrillic glyphs added by Valek Filippov, copyright 2001-2002; Vietnamese characters were added by Han The Thanh; copyright 2006, 2008 for TeX Gyre extensions by B. Jackowski and J.M. Nowacki (on behalf of TeX users groups). This work is released under the GUST Font License -- see http://tug.org/fonts/licenses/GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt for details. As you can see, there is no attempt to missattribute the work. The only trouble is that GUST attempted to relicense the work under more liberal terms, from GPL to LPPL/GUST. IMHO, the way is to convince URW and the two individual contributors (Valek Filippov and Han The Thanh) to agree to relicense their work under a license more appropriate for fonts. Perhaps Tom can suggest what the best license is. It seem that GUST had trouble hearing back from URW. Perhaps some company with more legal clout should offer some help. After all, URW cannot financially benefit from GPL'd fonts that have been hacked by the FOSS community for a decade, so my guess is that URW saw this relicensing matter as just not worth their time. Also, when URW released the fonts, people weren't aware as they are today of the legal implications of GPL for fonts... Hope this helps, Vasile 2008/7/26 Nicolas Mailhot : > Hi, > > I'm afraid these answers are utterly unconvincing. I've just checked > Debian made the very same analysis as us, and you're on your way to get > yourself blacklisted in all major Linux distributions. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/texlive-extra/+bug/135911/comments/3 > > In case that's not clear enough, you have a problem. > > On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:48 +0200, Hans Hagen wrote: >> Jonathan Underwood wrote: >> > Dear Hans, >> > >> > Some legal concerns have arisen regarding the licensing of the TeX >> > Gyre fonts - please see >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580. In particular, >> > this part is most relevant: >> > >> > 2. The textlive-texfm includes tex-gyre fonts. As the authors freely >> > admit they lifted the GNU Ghostscript GPL fonts, changed their format, >> > modified the result, >> > and relicensed it all under their own license [1]. They don't list any >> > authorization for this from the previous rights holders in their >> > package. Since we can not ship the GPL bits they lifted under another >> > license, and we can not ship the bits they added under the GPL without >> > tex-gyre people authorization, the whole thing is un-distributable and >> > must be removed [2] >> > >> > [1] page 8 of http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf >> > [2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-July/msg00111.html >> > >> > I wonder if you would take a few moments to look at this and comment >> > on the correctness of the analysis and help to resolve these issues? I >> > am sure you'd agree with me that resolving this is important for the >> > TeX Gyre project, and free software fonts in general. >> > >> > Finally, in case it's not clear, I'd just like to point out that I am >> > *not* contacting you in my capacity as chair of the UKTUG funding >> > sub-committee in this instance, but as a member of UKTUG, and also a >> > Fedora contributor. Nonetheless, as a UKTUG member I would not be >> > happy to think that UKTUG is financially supporting a project which is >> > in violation of the GPL, if that is indeed the case. >> >> a short reply (i have to catch up many mails after the tug conference) >> >> - the gust font licence is mostly the lppl licence which is accepted as ok > > Irrelevant. We are not complaining about the Gust font license we are > complaining about re-licensing without previuous authors authorization. > >> - the main 'additions' concern packaging (file names, internal font >> names, etc. since any simple replacement/extension can mess up doc >> production and could put a stress on user group support), which is an >> important issue for tex distributions > > That's still a lot of work. We respect licensing regardless of the size > of the contribution > >> - gpl is targeted at programs and fonts are not exactly programs > > Given the number of fonts we ship under GPL, LGPL or derived licenses > (including Liberation), this argument is not receivable. "I don't like > this license I'll just use another and no one's the wiser" ? you're not > serious. > >> - we try to contact e.g. urw on some other issues (it's currently not >> even clear of some of the fonts were ever legally gpl'd!) but they don't >> react (such a kind of 'disappearing responsibility' happened before with >> some other font where eventually responsibility was transfered to tug) > > You can not work just with URW. The right contacts are Artifex and all > the people who contributed to the fonts since their release. > >> - some of the 'original' fonts contain additions of rather poor quality >> (greek and cyrillic) and when/how they ended up in there withoput any >> quality assurance is unclear, so in general one can say that these fonts >> have a somewhat fuzzy history > > Quality as nothing to do with licensing. You can make bad contributions > under a good license, and good contributions under a bad license. We can > ship the first but not the other. > >> we're currently convinced that eveything is ok with respect to the >> licence (btw, the amount of changes to the fonts are pretty large so one >> might as well wonder if we're dealing with new digitizations) > > Again, this is the kind of fuzzy logic that can not stand legaly. > >> Jerzy might have a more detailed answer since he's in charge of the >> licencing > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 14:25:48 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:25:48 +0300 Subject: freetype 2.3.6+ has significant improvements in hinting Message-ID: I've been using a CVS snapshot of freetype 2.3.8 for a few days and I have to say I'm impressed by the improvements in hinting, even when it's just the auto-hinter. From the Changelog it seem that all the hinting improvements occurred in 2.3.6, which is currently in rawhide. There was improvement across the board: PS, CFF and TTF, but the CFF hinting had significant portions rewritten, which should bode well with the strategy to prefer OpenType CFF fonts. I think that freetype 2.3.6 (at least) should be pushed to F9 updates too, unless you want to list "better hinting" as a feature for F10 :p From behdad at behdad.org Wed Jul 30 14:34:01 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:34:01 -0700 Subject: freetype 2.3.6+ has significant improvements in hinting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1217428441.32532.13.camel@behdad.behdad.org> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 17:25 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > I've been using a CVS snapshot of freetype 2.3.8 for a few days and I > have to say I'm impressed by the improvements in hinting, even when > it's just the auto-hinter. From the Changelog it seem that all the > hinting improvements occurred in 2.3.6, which is currently in rawhide. > There was improvement across the board: PS, CFF and TTF, but the CFF > hinting had significant portions rewritten, which should bode well > with the strategy to prefer OpenType CFF fonts. > > I think that freetype 2.3.6 (at least) should be pushed to F9 updates > too, unless you want to list "better hinting" as a feature for F10 :p No, no, no. What looks great to you looks ugly to others. No FreeType updates. That's a rule. "I upgraded to F10 and fonts look ugly" is bad enough, no need for "I updated my F9 and fonts look ugly". -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 15:24:37 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:24:37 +0300 Subject: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages] In-Reply-To: References: <1216991931.3502.5.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217090970.28047.7.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1217156892.25486.8.camel@rousalka.okg> <645d17210807270620q3703583bj3f3272fcb17807b2@mail.gmail.com> <1217174909.1480.11.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: Just in time, TeXLive now has a modular installer. Can even install off the net: http://www.river-valley.tv/conferences/bachotex2008/#0104-Reinhard_Kotucha On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: >> On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 14:20 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: >> >>> In actual fact, the reason that I had made little headway is that when >>> you start to look at the problem carefully you start to realize that >>> it's a bit of a mistake for Fedora to be repackaging the texlive >>> distribution rather than packaging the individual upstream projects. >> >> I totally agree with this assessment > > Well, the trouble is that there's no Linux/Unix TeX distro like > MiKTeX, which has a nice *modular* packaging system. I'd rather have a > Fedora-style TeX distro with frequent updates that TeXLive's once a > year monolithic disk image. There's a beta version of MiKTeX's > packaging tool (mpm) for Linux > [http://blog.miktex.org/post/2005/08/mpmunix.aspx], but so far nobody > made a Linux TeX distro using it. And that's a lot of work, so I'm not > signing up for it on my current schedule... > From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 16:17:47 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:17:47 -0400 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> Message-ID: <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:59 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > As you can see, there is no attempt to missattribute the work. The > only trouble is that GUST attempted to relicense the work under more > liberal terms, from GPL to LPPL/GUST. IMHO, the way is to convince URW > and the two individual contributors (Valek Filippov and Han The Thanh) > to agree to relicense their work under a license more appropriate for > fonts. Perhaps Tom can suggest what the best license is. I won't go so far as to suggest the "best license", however, the simplest solution would be to convince the contributors to agree to license their contributions under the GPL (with font exception) as that would be compatible with URW's original work (thus, we would not be bottlenecked trying to reach URW). ~spot From mnowak at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 17:12:46 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 457281: Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font In-Reply-To: <819762014.2033911217437605662.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <36066287.2034491217437966646.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> SSIA but ... :) * Tue Jul 30 2008 Michal Nowak - 1.00-1 - initial packaging - this package should be prepared for another unikurd fonts in sub-packages because on the KurdIT group/unikurd web there are dozens of them, but probably not under suitable licenses -- Michal Nowak BaseOS QE (Apps/Toolchain sub-group) Engineer From dave at lab6.com Wed Jul 30 18:13:29 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:13:29 +0100 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807301113i5b5cd193o8ecd5b23d612a938@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/30 Tom spot Callaway : > > I won't go so far as to suggest the "best license", however, the > simplest solution would be to convince the contributors to agree to > license their contributions under the GPL (with font exception) as that > would be compatible with URW's original work (thus, we would not be > bottlenecked trying to reach URW). URW's GPL release does not include the "font exception" additional permission; indeed, it predates it. -- Regards, Dave From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 18:19:56 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:19:56 -0400 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807301113i5b5cd193o8ecd5b23d612a938@mail.gmail.com> References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301113i5b5cd193o8ecd5b23d612a938@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1217441996.18627.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 19:13 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: > URW's GPL release does not include the "font exception" additional > permission; indeed, it predates it. Yes, however, GPL is not incompatible with "GPL with font exception". It doesn't make sense to continue using GPL without the font exception for font licensing, which is why I recommended that instead of simply GPL. ~spot From vgaburici at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 19:29:48 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:29:48 +0300 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: <1217441996.18627.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301113i5b5cd193o8ecd5b23d612a938@mail.gmail.com> <1217441996.18627.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: My lack of legal brain is confused on this. If URW doesn't change the license and it remains purely GPL, but the other contributors agree to re-license their parts as GLP+FontException, then what is there to be gained by this? Isn't the user bound by most restrictive license in the package, that is pure GPL? On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 19:13 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: >> URW's GPL release does not include the "font exception" additional >> permission; indeed, it predates it. > > Yes, however, GPL is not incompatible with "GPL with font exception". > It doesn't make sense to continue using GPL without the font exception > for > font licensing, which is why I recommended that instead of simply GPL. > > ~spot > > From dave at lab6.com Wed Jul 30 21:22:43 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:22:43 +0100 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301113i5b5cd193o8ecd5b23d612a938@mail.gmail.com> <1217441996.18627.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807301422v65b046c6r151d4a6363adfc32@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/30 Vasile Gaburici : > My lack of legal brain is confused on this. If URW doesn't change the > license and it remains purely GPL, but the other contributors agree to > re-license their parts as GLP+FontException, then what is there to be > gained by this? Isn't the user bound by most restrictive license in > the package, that is pure GPL? That is my understanding, and my point :-) From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 22:02:47 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:02:47 -0400 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807301422v65b046c6r151d4a6363adfc32@mail.gmail.com> References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301113i5b5cd193o8ecd5b23d612a938@mail.gmail.com> <1217441996.18627.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301422v65b046c6r151d4a6363adfc32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1217455367.18627.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 22:22 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/7/30 Vasile Gaburici : > > My lack of legal brain is confused on this. If URW doesn't change the > > license and it remains purely GPL, but the other contributors agree to > > re-license their parts as GLP+FontException, then what is there to be > > gained by this? Isn't the user bound by most restrictive license in > > the package, that is pure GPL? > > That is my understanding, and my point :-) Yes, that is true, but: A) The package is then distributable B) The only remaining issue is to sell URW on the font exception, which can be done at any time. ~spot From dave at lab6.com Wed Jul 30 22:07:50 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:07:50 +0100 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: <1217455367.18627.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <488B00FD.3030100@wxs.nl> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301113i5b5cd193o8ecd5b23d612a938@mail.gmail.com> <1217441996.18627.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301422v65b046c6r151d4a6363adfc32@mail.gmail.com> <1217455367.18627.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2285a9d20807301507p711f8d49j1cf16fcd400e857d@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/30 Tom spot Callaway : >> 2008/7/30 Vasile Gaburici : >> > Isn't the user bound by most restrictive license in >> > the package, that is pure GPL? > > Yes, that is true, but: > > A) The package is then distributable > B) The only remaining issue is to sell URW on the font exception, which > can be done at any time. Ah yes okay, now I get it, when you said "thus, we would not be bottlenecked trying to reach URW" you didn't mean we don't have to contact URW to arrive at our destination - we still do - just we aren't bottlenecked from distributing the Gyre fonts. Perhaps the Gyre project could release all the glyphs that are not derived from the original GPL ones as a separate font package with the GUST license? From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 07:59:58 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:59:58 +0300 Subject: TeXGyre fonts licensing concern In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20807301507p711f8d49j1cf16fcd400e857d@mail.gmail.com> References: <645d17210807241621r1b7593cdqa186c3c1da8487ff@mail.gmail.com> <1217071502.13473.16.camel@rousalka.okg> <1217434667.18627.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301113i5b5cd193o8ecd5b23d612a938@mail.gmail.com> <1217441996.18627.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301422v65b046c6r151d4a6363adfc32@mail.gmail.com> <1217455367.18627.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2285a9d20807301507p711f8d49j1cf16fcd400e857d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Most of Gyre's additions are not glyhs but OpenType tables: kerning, locale specific typographic rules (locl etc.) On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/7/30 Tom spot Callaway : >>> 2008/7/30 Vasile Gaburici : >>> > Isn't the user bound by most restrictive license in >>> > the package, that is pure GPL? >> >> Yes, that is true, but: >> >> A) The package is then distributable >> B) The only remaining issue is to sell URW on the font exception, which >> can be done at any time. > > Ah yes okay, now I get it, when you said > > "thus, we would not be bottlenecked trying to reach URW" > > you didn't mean we don't have to contact URW to arrive at our > destination - we still do - just we aren't bottlenecked from > distributing the Gyre fonts. > > Perhaps the Gyre project could release all the glyphs that are not > derived from the original GPL ones as a separate font package with the > GUST license? > >