[tex-live] Fwd: Re: la.sty and va.sty and non-free fonts

Gerd Neugebauer gene at gerd-neugebauer.de
Mon Apr 9 19:54:06 CEST 2012

Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk> hat am 9. April 2012 um
19:26 geschrieben:

> > > i have always found the fundus bundle rather disturbing; indeed, i>
> > wonder whether tl is allowed to distribute bits of it at all (even if
> > > the licence "you are NOT allowed to modify this file" is considered
> > > "free") -- it seems to demand that all of fundus be distributed
> > > together.  (i'm not an expert here, but i wouldn't be surprised to be
> > > told to downgrade them.)
> note: "disturbed" by a large number of packages that aren't obviously
> separable.  t

What would you propose? Would it help to put the different pieces in
sub-directories of their own? I have made a classification and propse the
following sub-directories:

  calligra.dtx  -> calligra
  calligra.ins  -> calligra
  cyr.sty       -> cyr
  doc/          ==> move the contents to the new directories
  la.dtx        -> la
  la.ins        -> la
  ot1ocm.fd     -> outline
  ot1ocmss.fd   -> outline
  ot1ocmtt.fd   -> outline
  outline.dtx   -> outline
  outline.ins   -> outline
  pvscript.dtx  -> pvscript
  pvscript.ins  -> pvscript
  startrek.dtx  -> startrek
  startrek.ins  -> startrek
  startrek.map  -> startrek
  stclass.zip   -> startrek
  stmov.zip     -> startrek
  suetterl.dtx  -> suetterl
  suetterl.ins  -> suetterl
  tngcril.zip   -> startrek
  tngmon.zip    -> startrek
  tngtit.zip    -> startrek
  twcal.dtx     -> twcal
  twcal.ins     -> tqcal
  va.dtx        -> va
  va.ins        -> va

> > I have written the packages for a series of articles in "Die TeXnische
> > Kom=C3=B6die" with a common section title "Aus dem Fundus". That's
where the
> > name comes from.  This is the only relation between the packages.
> sadly, i don't read german well enough to cope with any articles i've
> encountered.

Well the contents says essentially that I had the impression at that time
that the fonts are in the public domain. I have named the original sources:


The web site is redirected today, but the pages had been gone before.

> > To clarify the license issue:
> > - The packages can be distributed and used separately under the
> > of the LPPL
> i've not heard whether the licence in the files should be considered
> non-free.
> if so, i feel a statement in an email isn't enough to negate all the
> licence statements in the files.  note that these licence statements
> aren't just examined by us: the tl people examine licences carefully,
> and people even further downstream do as well -- we've already had the
> (huge) results from redhat's analysis of the stuff in ctan ... and
> that's only one of the linux distributors -- there are several others,
> and other free operating systems that may do analyses.

If it helps, I can make new versions of the files with clarified license
Should I go this way?

> robin


More information about the tex-live mailing list