Keeping the Debian Xprint sources seperate from the Debian Xorg sources ? / was: Re: PMF license / was: Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
Felix Schulte wrote: [snip] > > Since the xprint-org package is anyway maintained outside the xfree86 > > tree AND considering that the whole purpose of these new X.org packages > > is to split the tree as much as possible, I suggest that we can just > > stop shipping the xprint code from x.org tree, since there is absolutely > > no point in shipping it twice and maintaing it twice. > Urgh. > The X.org tree and the xprint-org are now coming from the same CVS > repository as annouced on the xprint.mozdev.org front page. However I > assume that both will continue to have different functionality, X.org > version being the normal version, xprint-org being the development > version or something like that. > > Fabio: What about making Drew Parsons the maintainer of both versions > just for the case that you can't handle it? :) One version may be less confusing. Unless urgend bugfixing happened the "normal" release cycles between two major Xprint releases was more or less six months - the same amount of time Xorg is planning for their major version release cycle. But I agree... it sounds a nice idea to make Drew Parsons the maintainer of the Debian Xorg Xprint server package if he wants to do that (and Fabio and Branden agree with that). Maintaining the Xprint server as seperate package may or may not be slightly more difficult as it now supports the GLX extension (=OpenGL) which added more or less the whole Mesa codebase to the source. Having more than one person looking at the Mesa code may help a lot and lower the pain (at the beginning Drew had to work hard to get the Xprint server working on all platforms Debian supports and doing the same in two locations (Mesa in the Debian/Xorg tree and Mesa in the Debian/Xorg-Xprint) is twice the work where it wouldn't be neccesary) for Drew... :) > > I am pretty sure that the knowledge that Drew has on this package is far > > more deep than the one I have (possibly of other XSF maintainers). > > Meaning that his package is imho better qualified to stay where it is. > > Also resolving the issue of shipping two conflicting packages that are > > supposed to provide and do the same thing. > > Merging/re-building the package again from X.org means extra work needs > > to be done/redone/reviewed/etc. > > > > If nobody disagree with me i will start removing it within the next 2 or > > 3 days. > I disagree :) I disagree, too. See my comments above. Bye, Roland P.S.: Please keep the Xprint mailinglist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the CC: that other people get the emails, too - not everyone is subscribed to the debian-x lists... -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 07:44:30AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote: >> > |>| >> > |>| These files are no fonts, they are font metrics information (and >> > the |>| copyright notice was just copied over from the original font >> > from the |>| converter and does NOT apply to the font metrics files. > > I'd appreciate some precise references, please. I don't remember this > issue being discussed on debian-x. ... > I am perfectly willing to be persuaded that these files are under a > DFSG-free copyright license, or are in the public domain, but in my > view you haven't made a convincing case yet. > > Drew, do you have any recollections on this subject? > > -- > G. Branden Robinson| Life is what happens to you Someone raised the question of whether Xprint font files need to be removed, probably in 2002 as Roland said. I asked Roland about it and he replied they were under the same X11 licence as the other files. I accepted this and didn't pursue the question further. I can't find the discussion archived, it may have been a private correspondence with Roland. The guts of the argument were the same that Roland is presenting here. I hope his reply to you on Saturday has convinced you. Drew
Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
>> > |>| >> > |>| These files are no fonts, they are font metrics information (and >> > the |>| copyright notice was just copied over from the original font >> > from the |>| converter and does NOT apply to the font metrics files. > > I'd appreciate some precise references, please. I don't remember this > issue being discussed on debian-x. > ... > > I am perfectly willing to be persuaded that these files are under a > DFSG-free copyright license, or are in the public domain, but in my > view you haven't made a convincing case yet. > > Drew, do you have any recollections on this subject? > > -- > G. Branden Robinson| Life is what happens to you I remember someone raised the question of whether the Xprint font files should be excluded just as you did with XFree86. I brought the question to Roland, who replied the files were under the normal X11 licence and were therefore free. I accepted this without taking the matter further. I can't find the discussion archived, it may have been a private correspondence with Roland. The guts of the argument were the same that Roland is raising here. I hope the extra comments Roland made in reply to you on Saturday have convinced you. Drew
Re: PMF license / was: Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Felix Schulte wrote: | Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: | |> Since the xprint-org package is anyway maintained outside the xfree86 |> tree AND considering that the whole purpose of these new X.org packages |> is to split the tree as much as possible, I suggest that we can just |> stop shipping the xprint code from x.org tree, since there is absolutely |> no point in shipping it twice and maintaing it twice. | | Urgh. | The X.org tree and the xprint-org are now coming from the same CVS | repository as annouced on the xprint.mozdev.org front page. However I | assume that both will continue to have different functionality, X.org | version being the normal version, xprint-org being the development | version or something like that. Given what Drew wrote in another mail in this thread there is no point. They come from the same CVS and Drew never uploaded a development snapshot. | Fabio: What about making Drew Parsons the maintainer of both versions | just for the case that you can't handle it? :) That's up to Drew and not to me. | I disagree :) | Both packages should be seperate as both have different functionality | (one example: One of the Xprt servers now has OpenGL support which is a | *BIG* reason for us to drop our current Postscript hacking efforts and | switch completely over to Xprint!) What about our users? Which package are they suppose to use by default? Isn't this option confusing for them? Fabio - -- fajita: step one Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. fajita: step two When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBakcHhCzbekR3nhgRAvo5AKCfNlxAUkf8D4gph8Xrdmo9d9/NkACgpg9z 8hPl71ifSyBi8w2jgeKXZd8= =jUXs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: PMF license / was: Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roland Mainz wrote: | Again, this does not cover the PMF files. The original files have been | commited by Hewlett-Packard under the MIT/X Consortium license many many | years ago (and the files for the Postscript DDX were later refreshed by | me to fix a minor bug - and I committed them under the same license: | MIT/X.org). The so-called "copyright" notice in these files is just an | attribute which informs the application that the attribute "COPYRIGHT" | has a value. But this value does not relicense the file itself away from | the MIT/X.org license. That would be the same as "relicesing" this email | just because it references the string. References or index data of this | kind cannot be copyrighted, neither in the US nor in Japan nor elsewhere | in the world. | | |>I will try to find this discussion in Debian's list archives |>if you're interested. | | | Sure. It may be possible that Adobe Japan did some tricky stuff with CID | fonts, but again this doesn't apply to something which has been | explicitly commited under the MIT/X.org license by the authors. Since the xprint-org package is anyway maintained outside the xfree86 tree AND considering that the whole purpose of these new X.org packages is to split the tree as much as possible, I suggest that we can just stop shipping the xprint code from x.org tree, since there is absolutely no point in shipping it twice and maintaing it twice. Urgh. The X.org tree and the xprint-org are now coming from the same CVS repository as annouced on the xprint.mozdev.org front page. However I assume that both will continue to have different functionality, X.org version being the normal version, xprint-org being the development version or something like that. Fabio: What about making Drew Parsons the maintainer of both versions just for the case that you can't handle it? :) I am pretty sure that the knowledge that Drew has on this package is far more deep than the one I have (possibly of other XSF maintainers). Meaning that his package is imho better qualified to stay where it is. Also resolving the issue of shipping two conflicting packages that are supposed to provide and do the same thing. Merging/re-building the package again from X.org means extra work needs to be done/redone/reviewed/etc. If nobody disagree with me i will start removing it within the next 2 or 3 days. I disagree :) Both packages should be seperate as both have different functionality (one example: One of the Xprt servers now has OpenGL support which is a *BIG* reason for us to drop our current Postscript hacking efforts and switch completely over to Xprint!) - felix
Re: PMF license / was: Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
>
> Since the xprint-org package is anyway maintained outside the xfree86
> tree AND considering that the whole purpose of these new X.org packages
> is to split the tree as much as possible, I suggest that we can just
> stop shipping the xprint code from x.org tree, since there is
> absolutely no point in shipping it twice and maintaing it twice.
...
> If nobody disagree with me i will start removing it within the next 2
> or 3 days.
>
I've got no particular problems with this, but give it a week or so to let
Roland or anyone else raise any objections. The only reason we'd want to
X.Org's xprt is if it's perceived as a kind of "stable" version, where the
xprint.[mozdev.]org version would be the "bleeding edge" version. But on
the other hand, I've been careful in general to only upload the official
("stable") versions from xprint.mozdev.org into debian, not the
development versions, so this would be a false perception, really. The
official versions from xprint.mozdev.org should, by definition as it were,
be superior (if not identical) to the latest one in X.org.
I think if we'll agree to remove xprt (X.org) altogether, then it would
make best sense to rename my version as xprt, and turn xprt-xprintorg into
a dummy package which depends on the new xprt.
Drew
Re: PMF license / was: Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Drew Parsons wrote: |>Since the xprint-org package is anyway maintained outside the xfree86 |>tree AND considering that the whole purpose of these new X.org packages |>is to split the tree as much as possible, I suggest that we can just |>stop shipping the xprint code from x.org tree, since there is |>absolutely no point in shipping it twice and maintaing it twice. | | ... | |>If nobody disagree with me i will start removing it within the next 2 |>or 3 days. |> | | | I've got no particular problems with this, but give it a week or so to let | Roland or anyone else raise any objections. Sure, I have no objections. | I think if we'll agree to remove xprt (X.org) altogether, then it would | make best sense to rename my version as xprt, and turn xprt-xprintorg into | a dummy package which depends on the new xprt. Yes, i agree and i have no objections here either. Fabio - -- fajita: step one Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. fajita: step two When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBajkrhCzbekR3nhgRAmtHAJ0UgfF3oiooB9PiSD81XopstJ3IyQCgoNj2 NxyFr9geG4O9SNFJo2K4Id0= =QfJ2 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: PMF license / was: Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roland Mainz wrote: | Again, this does not cover the PMF files. The original files have been | commited by Hewlett-Packard under the MIT/X Consortium license many many | years ago (and the files for the Postscript DDX were later refreshed by | me to fix a minor bug - and I committed them under the same license: | MIT/X.org). The so-called "copyright" notice in these files is just an | attribute which informs the application that the attribute "COPYRIGHT" | has a value. But this value does not relicense the file itself away from | the MIT/X.org license. That would be the same as "relicesing" this email | just because it references the string. References or index data of this | kind cannot be copyrighted, neither in the US nor in Japan nor elsewhere | in the world. | | |>I will try to find this discussion in Debian's list archives |>if you're interested. | | | Sure. It may be possible that Adobe Japan did some tricky stuff with CID | fonts, but again this doesn't apply to something which has been | explicitly commited under the MIT/X.org license by the authors. Since the xprint-org package is anyway maintained outside the xfree86 tree AND considering that the whole purpose of these new X.org packages is to split the tree as much as possible, I suggest that we can just stop shipping the xprint code from x.org tree, since there is absolutely no point in shipping it twice and maintaing it twice. I am pretty sure that the knowledge that Drew has on this package is far more deep than the one I have (possibly of other XSF maintainers). Meaning that his package is imho better qualified to stay where it is. Also resolving the issue of shipping two conflicting packages that are supposed to provide and do the same thing. Merging/re-building the package again from X.org means extra work needs to be done/redone/reviewed/etc. If nobody disagree with me i will start removing it within the next 2 or 3 days. Fabio - -- fajita: step one Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. fajita: step two When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBajAShCzbekR3nhgRAuJgAJ4rdrxPpJoQDWZA3ru4sF+McZHaDACfVGxX Zv5g5OK+fMRDpe9MRaR8X9U= =do20 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
PMF license / was: Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 07:44:30AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > > |>|>+ server are not licensed at all, and some of the fonts bear no
> > > |>|>+ copyright information whatsoever.
> > > |>|>+
> > > |>|>+ All Rights Reserved.
> > > |>|>+
> > > |>|>+These font files therefore do not satisfy DFSG 1 ("Free
> > > |>|>+Redistribution"), DFSG 2 ("Source Code"), or DFSG 3 ("Derived
> > > |>Works").
> > > |>|>+
> > > |>|>+
> > > |>xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/C/print/models/HPDJ1600C/fonts/9nb00051.pmf
> > > |>|
> > > |>|
> > > |>| These files are no fonts, they are font metrics information (and the
> > > |>| copyright notice was just copied over from the original font from the
> > > |>| converter and does NOT apply to the font metrics files. The converter
> > > |>| just preserved all context attributes of the font regardless of their
> > > |>| content). The PMF fonts shipped with Xprint _conform_ 100% to the DFSG
> > > |>| 1/2/3 specs. This has extensively been discussed in the past.
> > > |>
> > > |>Do you have any reference I can lookup please?
> > > |
> > > | It should be archived either in the Debian-X mailinglist or in one of
> > > | the xprt-xprintorg package bugs. Drew Parsons may remember the bugid...
> > > | my email archive doesn't go that far into the past (I guess that issue
> > > | was debated around 2002 or earlier).
> > > |
> > > | The point is that we are talking about the files which contain only
> > > | width/height data (=metrics information) for each glphy and _no_ bitmap
> > > | or outline data (the PMF files are pretty small - if they would contain
> > > | bitmaps rasterizes at 2560DPI you would see GIANT files). The font data
> > > | itself, e.g. outlines or bitmaps are copyrightable but the width and
> > > | height information does not fall into the category - it would be silly
> > > | as everyone who would want to write an application which generates
> > > | Postscript code would need an explicit license from Adobe. _If_ Adobe
> > > | would have copyrighted the metrics information no opensource application
> > > | (Mozilla, Ghostscript, Openoffice, JAVA, etc.) would be able to use one
> > > | of the 30 default Postscript fonts defined by Postscript Level 2 as
> > > | there would be no way to measure&layout the glyphs (the same applies to
> > > | applications which generate PDF files). For example Mozilla ships the
> > > | same information stored in the PMF files as part of it's Postscript
> > > | print module (see
> > > | http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/gfx/src/ps/Courier-Bold.h , note
> > > | that this source code is under MPL(=Mozilla Public License), the PMF
> > > | files in the XOrg tree were donated by HP and Sun under the MIT license)
> > > | and noone complained about that since many years (the same data were
> > > | used in Netscape 4.x, too).
> > >
> > > Ok. I think you conviced me. I want to wait for Branden's opinion too
> > > since he was the one creating these copyright notes and scripts for
> > > removal of these files in the first place.
> >
> > OK.
>
> I'd appreciate some precise references, please. I don't remember this
> issue being discussed on debian-x.
>
> Your reasoning seems to be grounded on a couple of problematic premises:
> * That font metric information isn't copyrightable. This may be true in
> the United States, but one of the big reasons Debian still has a non-free
> section is because Adobe in Japan asserts copyright over just this sort
> of thing.
Again, this does not cover the PMF files. The original files have been
commited by Hewlett-Packard under the MIT/X Consortium license many many
years ago (and the files for the Postscript DDX were later refreshed by
me to fix a minor bug - and I committed them under the same license:
MIT/X.org). The so-called "copyright" notice in these files is just an
attribute which informs the application that the attribute "COPYRIGHT"
has a value. But this value does not relicense the file itself away from
the MIT/X.org license. That would be the same as "relicesing" this email
just because it references the string. References or index data of this
kind cannot be copyrighted, neither in the US nor in Japan nor elsewhere
in the world.
> I will try to find this discussion in Debian's list archives
> if you're interested.
Sure. It may be possible that Adobe Japan did some tricky stuff with CID
fonts, but again this doesn't apply to something which has been
explicitly commited under the MIT/X.org license by the authors.
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 07:44:30AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > |>|>+ server are not licensed at all, and some of the fonts bear no
> > |>|>+ copyright information whatsoever.
> > |>|>+
> > |>|>+ All Rights Reserved.
> > |>|>+
> > |>|>+These font files therefore do not satisfy DFSG 1 ("Free
> > |>|>+Redistribution"), DFSG 2 ("Source Code"), or DFSG 3 ("Derived
> > |>Works").
> > |>|>+
> > |>|>+
> > |>xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/C/print/models/HPDJ1600C/fonts/9nb00051.pmf
> > |>|
> > |>|
> > |>| These files are no fonts, they are font metrics information (and the
> > |>| copyright notice was just copied over from the original font from the
> > |>| converter and does NOT apply to the font metrics files. The converter
> > |>| just preserved all context attributes of the font regardless of their
> > |>| content). The PMF fonts shipped with Xprint _conform_ 100% to the DFSG
> > |>| 1/2/3 specs. This has extensively been discussed in the past.
> > |>
> > |>Do you have any reference I can lookup please?
> > |
> > | It should be archived either in the Debian-X mailinglist or in one of
> > | the xprt-xprintorg package bugs. Drew Parsons may remember the bugid...
> > | my email archive doesn't go that far into the past (I guess that issue
> > | was debated around 2002 or earlier).
> > |
> > | The point is that we are talking about the files which contain only
> > | width/height data (=metrics information) for each glphy and _no_ bitmap
> > | or outline data (the PMF files are pretty small - if they would contain
> > | bitmaps rasterizes at 2560DPI you would see GIANT files). The font data
> > | itself, e.g. outlines or bitmaps are copyrightable but the width and
> > | height information does not fall into the category - it would be silly
> > | as everyone who would want to write an application which generates
> > | Postscript code would need an explicit license from Adobe. _If_ Adobe
> > | would have copyrighted the metrics information no opensource application
> > | (Mozilla, Ghostscript, Openoffice, JAVA, etc.) would be able to use one
> > | of the 30 default Postscript fonts defined by Postscript Level 2 as
> > | there would be no way to measure&layout the glyphs (the same applies to
> > | applications which generate PDF files). For example Mozilla ships the
> > | same information stored in the PMF files as part of it's Postscript
> > | print module (see
> > | http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/gfx/src/ps/Courier-Bold.h , note
> > | that this source code is under MPL(=Mozilla Public License), the PMF
> > | files in the XOrg tree were donated by HP and Sun under the MIT license)
> > | and noone complained about that since many years (the same data were
> > | used in Netscape 4.x, too).
> >
> > Ok. I think you conviced me. I want to wait for Branden's opinion too
> > since he was the one creating these copyright notes and scripts for
> > removal of these files in the first place.
>
> OK.
I'd appreciate some precise references, please. I don't remember this
issue being discussed on debian-x.
Your reasoning seems to be grounded on a couple of problematic premises:
* That font metric information isn't copyrightable. This may be true in
the United States, but one of the big reasons Debian still has a non-free
section is because Adobe in Japan asserts copyright over just this sort
of thing. I will try to find this discussion in Debian's list archives
if you're interested.
* No one's complained yet about people freely distributing these files, so
they must be DFSG-free. This premise is just plain bogus. I don't think
Debian can afford to get dragged to court and try to defend ourselves on
fair use grounds (or by invoking the theory of laches, which is what you
seem to be implying).
I am perfectly willing to be persuaded that these files are under a
DFSG-free copyright license, or are in the public domain, but in my view
you haven't made a convincing case yet.
Drew, do you have any recollections on this subject?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Life is what happens to you while
Debian GNU/Linux | you're busy making other plans.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- John Lennon
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 -inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> |>| The SPSPARC2 model wasn't removed in the Xorg repository and is still
> |>| there in DESTDIR after a % make install # ...
> |>
> |>This file was not removed from our Xfree86 tree either, but
> |>SPSPARC2/fonts is now empty. I will correct the note in the CHANGESET to
> |>reflect the correct path.
> |
> | .../SPSPARC2/fonts/ should not be empty. It should contain soft links to
> | the ../../PSdefault/fonts/ directory where now the font metrics files
> | (*.pmf) for the 30 default Postscript fonts are stored (the "PSdefault"
> | printer model-config was added to have one "generic" configuration which
> | should work for all Postscript printers >= PS Level 2).
> | Note that the install procedure for these files has changed - previously
> | (X11 < release X11R6.8.0 and Xfree86) the xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/
> | directory was simply copied to the destination directory, now (X11 >=
> | release X11R6.8.0) the information and links are generated at % make
> | install # time - maybe that's the problem...
>
> Ok this make sense to me now.
Please check whether the fonts.dir of the "PSdefault" model is populated
(30 entries, the "SPSPARC2" model-config only links a subset of these
fonts into the SPSPARC2/fonts/ dir as the printer has fewer fonts in
it's ROM) in the Debian package. If the PMF files are missing the Xprint
server is likely going amok and all printers which use this model won't
work as expected. And since "PSdefault" is the "generic"(=default)
model-config really worse this can happen then... ;-(
BTW: Please sync with Drew Parsons about the Xprint configuration - the
xprint.mozdev.org and Xorg trees have been merged in X11R6.8.0 so both
versions of the Xprint server and server maintaince tools
("xplsprinters", "xphelloworld", etc.) are now the same...
> |>|>+ 6) The Compugraphic and Adobe fonts distributed as part of the XPrint
> |
> |
> | s/XPrint/Xprint/ , please :)
>
> Sure no problem :-)
Thanks! :)
> |>|>+ server are not licensed at all, and some of the fonts bear no
> |>|>+ copyright information whatsoever.
> |>|>+
> |>|>+ All Rights Reserved.
> |>|>+
> |>|>+These font files therefore do not satisfy DFSG 1 ("Free
> |>|>+Redistribution"), DFSG 2 ("Source Code"), or DFSG 3 ("Derived
> |>Works").
> |>|>+
> |>|>+
> |>xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/C/print/models/HPDJ1600C/fonts/9nb00051.pmf
> |>|
> |>|
> |>| These files are no fonts, they are font metrics information (and the
> |>| copyright notice was just copied over from the original font from the
> |>| converter and does NOT apply to the font metrics files. The converter
> |>| just preserved all context attributes of the font regardless of their
> |>| content). The PMF fonts shipped with Xprint _conform_ 100% to the DFSG
> |>| 1/2/3 specs. This has extensively been discussed in the past.
> |>
> |>Do you have any reference I can lookup please?
> |
> | It should be archived either in the Debian-X mailinglist or in one of
> | the xprt-xprintorg package bugs. Drew Parsons may remember the bugid...
> | my email archive doesn't go that far into the past (I guess that issue
> | was debated around 2002 or earlier).
> |
> | The point is that we are talking about the files which contain only
> | width/height data (=metrics information) for each glphy and _no_ bitmap
> | or outline data (the PMF files are pretty small - if they would contain
> | bitmaps rasterizes at 2560DPI you would see GIANT files). The font data
> | itself, e.g. outlines or bitmaps are copyrightable but the width and
> | height information does not fall into the category - it would be silly
> | as everyone who would want to write an application which generates
> | Postscript code would need an explicit license from Adobe. _If_ Adobe
> | would have copyrighted the metrics information no opensource application
> | (Mozilla, Ghostscript, Openoffice, JAVA, etc.) would be able to use one
> | of the 30 default Postscript fonts defined by Postscript Level 2 as
> | there would be no way to measure&layout the glyphs (the same applies to
> | applications which generate PDF files). For example Mozilla ships the
> | same information stored in the PMF files as part of it's Postscript
> | print module (see
> | http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/gfx/src/ps/Courier-Bold.h , note
> | that this source code is under MPL(=Mozilla Public License), the PMF
> | files in the XOrg tree were donated by HP and Sun under the MIT license)
> | and noone complained about that since many years (the same data were
> | used in Netscape 4.x, too).
>
> Ok. I think you conviced me. I want to wait for Branden's opinion too
> since he was the one creating these copyright notes and scripts for
> removal of these files in the first place.
OK.
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 - inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Roland,
>
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> | X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin wrote:
> |
> |>Author: fabbione
> |
> |>+* Import and adapt debian/scripts/prune-non-free:
> |>+ + update and review debian/copyright file.
> |>+ (note xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/C/print/models/SPSPARC2/
> disappeared from
> |>+ upstream)
> |>+19
> |>+
> |
> | The SPSPARC2 model wasn't removed in the Xorg repository and is still
> | there in DESTDIR after a % make install # ...
>
> This file was not removed from our Xfree86 tree either, but
> SPSPARC2/fonts is now empty. I will correct the note in the CHANGESET to
> reflect the correct path.
.../SPSPARC2/fonts/ should not be empty. It should contain soft links to
the ../../PSdefault/fonts/ directory where now the font metrics files
(*.pmf) for the 30 default Postscript fonts are stored (the "PSdefault"
printer model-config was added to have one "generic" configuration which
should work for all Postscript printers >= PS Level 2).
Note that the install procedure for these files has changed - previously
(X11 < release X11R6.8.0 and Xfree86) the xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/
directory was simply copied to the destination directory, now (X11 >=
release X11R6.8.0) the information and links are generated at % make
install # time - maybe that's the problem...
> |>+ 6) The Compugraphic and Adobe fonts distributed as part of the XPrint
s/XPrint/Xprint/ , please :)
> |>+ server are not licensed at all, and some of the fonts bear no
> |>+ copyright information whatsoever.
> |>+
> |>+ All Rights Reserved.
> |>+
> |>+These font files therefore do not satisfy DFSG 1 ("Free
> |>+Redistribution"), DFSG 2 ("Source Code"), or DFSG 3 ("Derived
> Works").
> |>+
> |>+
> xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/C/print/models/HPDJ1600C/fonts/9nb00051.pmf
> |
> |
> | These files are no fonts, they are font metrics information (and the
> | copyright notice was just copied over from the original font from the
> | converter and does NOT apply to the font metrics files. The converter
> | just preserved all context attributes of the font regardless of their
> | content). The PMF fonts shipped with Xprint _conform_ 100% to the DFSG
> | 1/2/3 specs. This has extensively been discussed in the past.
>
> Do you have any reference I can lookup please?
It should be archived either in the Debian-X mailinglist or in one of
the xprt-xprintorg package bugs. Drew Parsons may remember the bugid...
my email archive doesn't go that far into the past (I guess that issue
was debated around 2002 or earlier).
The point is that we are talking about the files which contain only
width/height data (=metrics information) for each glphy and _no_ bitmap
or outline data (the PMF files are pretty small - if they would contain
bitmaps rasterizes at 2560DPI you would see GIANT files). The font data
itself, e.g. outlines or bitmaps are copyrightable but the width and
height information does not fall into the category - it would be silly
as everyone who would want to write an application which generates
Postscript code would need an explicit license from Adobe. _If_ Adobe
would have copyrighted the metrics information no opensource application
(Mozilla, Ghostscript, Openoffice, JAVA, etc.) would be able to use one
of the 30 default Postscript fonts defined by Postscript Level 2 as
there would be no way to measure&layout the glyphs (the same applies to
applications which generate PDF files). For example Mozilla ships the
same information stored in the PMF files as part of it's Postscript
print module (see
http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/gfx/src/ps/Courier-Bold.h , note
that this source code is under MPL(=Mozilla Public License), the PMF
files in the XOrg tree were donated by HP and Sun under the MIT license)
and noone complained about that since many years (the same data were
used in Netscape 4.x, too).
-
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
Re: [Xprint] Re: X Strike Force XOrg SVN commit: r19 - inxorg/trunk/debian: . scripts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roland Mainz wrote:
|>|
|>| The SPSPARC2 model wasn't removed in the Xorg repository and is still
|>| there in DESTDIR after a % make install # ...
|>
|>This file was not removed from our Xfree86 tree either, but
|>SPSPARC2/fonts is now empty. I will correct the note in the CHANGESET to
|>reflect the correct path.
|
|
| .../SPSPARC2/fonts/ should not be empty. It should contain soft links to
| the ../../PSdefault/fonts/ directory where now the font metrics files
| (*.pmf) for the 30 default Postscript fonts are stored (the "PSdefault"
| printer model-config was added to have one "generic" configuration which
| should work for all Postscript printers >= PS Level 2).
| Note that the install procedure for these files has changed - previously
| (X11 < release X11R6.8.0 and Xfree86) the xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/
| directory was simply copied to the destination directory, now (X11 >=
| release X11R6.8.0) the information and links are generated at % make
| install # time - maybe that's the problem...
Ok this make sense to me now.
|>|>+ 6) The Compugraphic and Adobe fonts distributed as part of the XPrint
|
|
| s/XPrint/Xprint/ , please :)
Sure no problem :-)
|
|>|>+ server are not licensed at all, and some of the fonts bear no
|>|>+ copyright information whatsoever.
|>|>+
|>|>+ All Rights Reserved.
|>|>+
|>|>+These font files therefore do not satisfy DFSG 1 ("Free
|>|>+Redistribution"), DFSG 2 ("Source Code"), or DFSG 3 ("Derived
|>Works").
|>|>+
|>|>+
|>xc/programs/Xserver/XpConfig/C/print/models/HPDJ1600C/fonts/9nb00051.pmf
|>|
|>|
|>| These files are no fonts, they are font metrics information (and the
|>| copyright notice was just copied over from the original font from the
|>| converter and does NOT apply to the font metrics files. The converter
|>| just preserved all context attributes of the font regardless of their
|>| content). The PMF fonts shipped with Xprint _conform_ 100% to the DFSG
|>| 1/2/3 specs. This has extensively been discussed in the past.
|>
|>Do you have any reference I can lookup please?
|
|
| It should be archived either in the Debian-X mailinglist or in one of
| the xprt-xprintorg package bugs. Drew Parsons may remember the bugid...
| my email archive doesn't go that far into the past (I guess that issue
| was debated around 2002 or earlier).
|
| The point is that we are talking about the files which contain only
| width/height data (=metrics information) for each glphy and _no_ bitmap
| or outline data (the PMF files are pretty small - if they would contain
| bitmaps rasterizes at 2560DPI you would see GIANT files). The font data
| itself, e.g. outlines or bitmaps are copyrightable but the width and
| height information does not fall into the category - it would be silly
| as everyone who would want to write an application which generates
| Postscript code would need an explicit license from Adobe. _If_ Adobe
| would have copyrighted the metrics information no opensource application
| (Mozilla, Ghostscript, Openoffice, JAVA, etc.) would be able to use one
| of the 30 default Postscript fonts defined by Postscript Level 2 as
| there would be no way to measure&layout the glyphs (the same applies to
| applications which generate PDF files). For example Mozilla ships the
| same information stored in the PMF files as part of it's Postscript
| print module (see
| http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/gfx/src/ps/Courier-Bold.h , note
| that this source code is under MPL(=Mozilla Public License), the PMF
| files in the XOrg tree were donated by HP and Sun under the MIT license)
| and noone complained about that since many years (the same data were
| used in Netscape 4.x, too).
Ok. I think you conviced me. I want to wait for Branden's opinion too
since he was the one creating these copyright notes and scripts for
removal of these files in the first place.
Thanks
Fabio
- --
fajita: step one
Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
fajita: step two
When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBX40HhCzbekR3nhgRAk2FAJ9PoNp6j3bevR1j54hIAliI5ji+EwCfb8nd
EOTgyjJZO13CziJE4A1hrIc=
=YhbN
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
