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

[Manfred Lotz]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:15:32 GMT
Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:

>     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

Thanks a lot, Karl. That helped me a lot in understanding things better.

-- 
Manfred