[tex-live] `verdana' package is missing although it is LPPL licensed

[Karl Berry]

    1. The source of the package documentation must be included.

Yes.

    2. The font used in the package documentation must be free (mentioned
    by Norbert).

Yes, but with an exception: if the documentation uses a nonfree font not
for any technical reason but merely aesthetic, then I allow it. That is,
if someone wanting to modify the package could easily change their
modified documentation to use a free font (say, Computer Modern), then I
don't reject it. Not that I recommend this, or am happy about doing so.
Admittedly it is a small compromise with the pure principle.

    3. The font used in the package documentation must be install-able as a
    TeX Live package (mentioned by Lars).

No. Sorry, I missed that statement. Documentation can use any free font,
whether or not it has been, or can be, packaged for TL. "Free" as in
libre (freedom), of course, not gratis (price).

    4. If the package, like verdana, provides support for a specific font
    then we have the same for the documentation and of course this specific
    must be free 

Yes (again, not necessarily installable as a TL package).

The general principle is not about fonts. A package whose only viable
use is with proprietary software of any kind (Adobe Acrobat being the
most common case) should also not be included in TL. It is the same
situation.

My longstanding summary of all this:
https://tug.org/texlive/pkgcontrib.html