Sat 19 Jul 2014 11:02:01 PM UTC, comment #8:
James - it would depend on exactly what Adobe did. For example, maybe what they signed with the FSF still talks about mustread, but that wasn't noted in the copyright.list entry. Or, maybe what they signed gives the FSF permission to distribute without mustread, but no one else.
For the sake of setting a good example, and for the sake of other people who might wish to modify/redistribute enscript, it seems like the best approach is just to include mustread, even if the fsf may not technically need to.
Ok?
|
Fri 18 Jul 2014 09:29:40 PM UTC, comment #7:
According to the copyright.list file on fencepost, Adobe sent papers to the fsf which:
ENSCRIPT Adobe Systems Inc. 1998-08-14
Grants permission to distribute, use, and modify Adobe Font Metric files.
That suggests that the MustRead.html file is not required.
|
Fri 30 Mar 2012 09:29:29 PM UTC, comment #6:
My mistake, then. Yes, I agree, enscript should include MustRead.html.
|
Fri 30 Mar 2012 06:06:25 PM UTC, comment #5:
Indeed, and you said in your first comment that the "not distributed without this file" clause is moot. But I don't see how you figure that, because it's one of the few requirements that license file states.
I got in touch with Brett Smith earlier (gnu.org #726617) because I was confused about the "without charge" clause. I mentioned enscript missing the MustRead.html file and he recommended I reported a bug for that. And so I did.
|
Fri 30 Mar 2012 05:34:00 PM UTC, comment #4:
Sam - the license text from Adobe is in the file MustRead.html in mirror.ctan.org/fonts/adobe/afm/ (both tarballs have the same file). The interesting part of the text is quoted in http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.live/11426.
There are similar license statements from Adobe for the 14 PDF fonts hanging around, e.g., http://rpdf2txt.rubyforge.org/lib/rpdf2txt/data/fonts/License-Adobe_txt.html.
Best,
Karl
|
Wed 21 Mar 2012 09:58:09 PM UTC, comment #3:
Sam -- as I recall, the updated license terms were on adobe's ftp site. Unfortunately I don't have precise information at my fingertips (this all happened many years ago), and I'm going to be away for the next few days, so this will have to hang until next week. But it did happen, really.
karl
|
Wed 21 Mar 2012 09:17:30 PM UTC, comment #2:
Do you have a link to those license terms? I can't find clear information about AFM files on Adobe's website. I suspect more than a few software packages include (old) AFM files, so it would be great to know that we can keep them in gNewSense.
|
Sun 18 Mar 2012 10:15:44 PM UTC, comment #1:
Hi Sam - the afm files from adobe are released under a permissive license these days, so even if there is such a requirement (i'm not sure) it is moot. it would be best to get the latest afm's, or use the afm's from ghostscript, or some such.
Tim, are you there? We could discuss ...
Thanks,
karl
|
Sun 18 Mar 2012 02:14:05 PM UTC, original submission:
Like enscript, GNU a2ps includes AFM files. Unlike a2ps, enscript doesn't include a license file with them. The license file, MustRead.html, says "... that the AFM files are not distributed without this file; ...". Does enscript also need to include this file to comply with the license?
|