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?

My mistake, then.  Yes, I agree, enscript should include MustRead.html.

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

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.

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?