Forgot to CC the bug tracker.
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --
Subject: Re: Source for latex-xft-fonts?
Date: Dienstag, 16. Januar 2007 20:59
From: Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2007 20:36 schrieb John Levon:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 08:11:22PM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote:
There is a bug filed against the latex-xft-fonts Debian package about
the lack of source code for it (http://bugs.debian.org/402148). This
prevents the package from entering etch (the upcoming stable release
of Debian).
Apparently the fonts have been converted from the corresponding LaTeX
.pfb fonts. Does anyone know how this was done? Is it possible to
automate?
I've entirely forgotten how I did it, but it definitely involved some
manual fixing of the fonts. I used some popular open-source font editor,
which I've also forgotten, and I had to fix some stuff up if I remember
rightly.
You probably used fontforge (formerly called PFAEdit IIRC).
I have no idea what sources they're looking for. It's like complaining
a .jpg doesn't have sources when it's a scanned in photo.
No, it is rather like looking for the source of a jpeg that somebody
created by manually modifying another one. This cannot be automated
either.
To me the ttf fonts look like a derived work of the original pfb versions.
So, these could be considered as source, but the normal way of automated
building from source would not work, so it would be pointless. AFAIK the
original pfb fonts are under the LPPL, so I think the following would
work:
- The ttf files are considered as source technically.
- The README documents that they were converted from the .pfb files and
polished manually after that.
- The README documents where to get the .pfb files (required by the LPPL).
IANAL, but I see no reason why this would not work.
Georg
---
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
