Debian Bug report logs - #665334
non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge (currently August 2014

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:11:39 -0400

Package: fontforge
Severity: serious

On 03/03/2012 07:48 AM, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> We have a package libimager-perl where we have had to remove a few
> adobe-related test files as being non-DFSG. See
> http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/TONYC/Imager-0.88/adobe.txt .
>
> However given a comment in the latest version's changelog:
>
> " - note that the generator of the apparently non-DFSG-free postscript
> in MMOne.pfb is a Debian package."
>
> by which he means fontforge. I intend to email to the author and assure
> him that this is a purely precautionary measure on our part and that the
> functionality of the package is not inhibited.
>
> However since fontforge has been roped into the issue I wonder what you
> guys think.

Hi Nicholas--

Thank you for raising this issue.  I just did a bit of research to try 
to figure out what this is about.

In fontforge, it appears that this code is embedded in 
fontforge/othersubrs.c

The originals of several of these functions seem to appear (with 
non-DFSG-free licensing) in the appendices of
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/font/5015.Type1_Supp.pdf

In particular, the licensing says:

>>> This code, as well as the code in the following appendices, is copyrighted by
>>> Adobe Systems Incorporated, and may not be reproduced except by
>>> permission of Adobe Systems Incorporated. Adobe Systems Incorporated
>>> grants permission to use this code in Type 1 font programs, as long as the
>>> code is used as it appears in this document, the copyright notice remains
>>> intact, and the character outline code included in such a font program is
>>> neither copied nor derived from character outline code in any Adobe Systems
>>> font program.

This license looks pretty non-DFSG-free to me, and it applies at least 
to the makeblendedfont array in fontforge/othersubrs.c.

Even more depressing, the makeblendedfont array in othersubrs.c actually 
has a modified comment (correcting a mistakenly copy/pasted buggy 
comment from the code in the PDF!) which potentially means that it is 
itself in violation of Adobe's restrictive license.

I'm not really sure what to do about this other than to open an RC bug 
against fontforge, which this e-mail should do :(

We could probably make a new dfsg-free "clean" upstream tarball that is 
still capable of building fontforge binaries by ripping out big chunks 
of this file (i haven't tried it yet), but i don't know what that would 
do to fontforge's ability to do Type1 font generation.

Another approach would be to move fontforge from the main archive to the 
non-free archive; but it seems like that would relegate many of our font 
packages to contrib, due to build-dependencies. :(

I'm open to other suggestions; i would be overjoyed, in fact, to hear 
other suggestions.  Does anyone have any proposals?

        --dkg

Message #10 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

Subject: Re: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:34:26 -0600

Hi,

> We could probably make a new dfsg-free "clean" upstream tarball that is 
> still capable of building fontforge binaries by ripping out big chunks 
> of this file (i haven't tried it yet), but i don't know what that would 
> do to fontforge's ability to do Type1 font generation.
> 
> Another approach would be to move fontforge from the main archive to the 
> non-free archive; but it seems like that would relegate many of our font 
> packages to contrib, due to build-dependencies. :(
> 
> I'm open to other suggestions; i would be overjoyed, in fact, to hear 
> other suggestions.  Does anyone have any proposals?

 Have you asked to upstream to change its license to DFSG-free one?
 Nowadays Adobe seems to be a little bit friendly to opensource. 
 It's best choice if we can have it.


-- 
Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp>

Message #15 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

To: Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp>

Cc: 665334@bugs.debian.org, john knightley <john.knightley@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:52:20 -0600

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 07/13/2012 11:34 AM, Hideki Yamane wrote:
>> We could probably make a new dfsg-free "clean" upstream tarball that is 
>> still capable of building fontforge binaries by ripping out big chunks 
>> of this file (i haven't tried it yet), but i don't know what that would 
>> do to fontforge's ability to do Type1 font generation.
>>
>> Another approach would be to move fontforge from the main archive to the 
>> non-free archive; but it seems like that would relegate many of our font 
>> packages to contrib, due to build-dependencies. :(
>>
>> I'm open to other suggestions; i would be overjoyed, in fact, to hear 
>> other suggestions.  Does anyone have any proposals?
> 
>  Have you asked to upstream to change its license to DFSG-free one?
>  Nowadays Adobe seems to be a little bit friendly to opensource. 
>  It's best choice if we can have it.

john knightley <john.knightley@gmail.com> (cc'ed here) had offered to
try to contact folks at adobe back in March, but i don't know if he did
that (or if he received the support he wanted from the group for doing
that).

john, did you speak with anyone?  Do you need anything else from us to
move this forward?

IIRC, the issue is:

 0) Adobe offered postscript code (the "makeblendedfont" function from
Adobe's Technical Specification #5015)  under a license that does not
allow modification, or reuse outside of a very specific purpose.
Additionally, the "OtherSubrs" function from Example 1 in Adobe's
Technical Specification #5014, doesn't appear to have any specific
license granted for reuse.

 1) fontforge embeds these two pieces of postscript in its source, and
replicates them into its output when it creates certain kinds of font files.

This situation does not satisfy the debian free software guidelines
because of the restrictions on modification and constraint on field of
endeavor.

If Adobe was willing to release these two functions under a more liberal
license (e.g. the BSD or MIT license) that would be a wonderful
contribution to the community.

Regards,

	--dkg

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #20 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Suggestion to Adobe

Date: 4 Aug 2012 11:32:14 +0200

In a comment on this page announcing the Open Source release of the font
Source Sans Pro I just suggested to Paul D. Hunt (Adobe) to have a look
at this FontSource issue:
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2012/08/source-sans-pro.html
(comment currently is awaiting moderation)

A solution of this issue would help to add Source Sans Pro to Debian
main instead of Debian contrib. See
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683774

Message #25 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: proposed plan to resolve fontforge non-dfsg-freeness

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:05:12 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Just wanted to note that in this message:

http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2012-March/009937.html

i proposed a way that we might be able to resolve the non-dfsg-free
issue with fontforge (#665334):


--------------
The code in question appears to be collected and emitted during
generation of Type1 fonts, as part of fontforge's DefaultOtherSubrs()
function.  Fontforge also allows the user to replace this data with the
OtherSubrsFile configuration.

What if we did the following:

  0) ripped out the adobe code

  1) made DefaultOtherSubrs() raise some sort of error

  2) made the UI for type1 export default to requesting an
OtherSubrsFile, and had it look in a standard place in the filesystem

  3) posted the Adobe-owned data in an OtherSubrsFile-compatible format
somewhere *not* as part of the fontforge package (for debian,
potentially in a package in non-free that placed the file in the
standard place in the filesystem)
-----------------

I haven't had time to work on this proposal, but if someone wants to
give it a shot, that would be great.

Unfortunately, i haven't seen any feedback on it specifically, so i
don't know if anyone else thinks it's feasible.

	--dkg

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #30 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>

To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: proposed plan to resolve fontforge non-dfsg-freeness

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:00:45 +0200

Am 29.08.2012 22:05, schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
>    2) made the UI for type1 export default to requesting an
> OtherSubrsFile, and had it look in a standard place in the filesystem

How about scripted export to Type1 format?

 - Fabian

Message #35 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

To: Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: Bug#665334: proposed plan to resolve fontforge non-dfsg-freeness

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:42:03 -0400

On 08/30/2012 03:00 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 29.08.2012 22:05, schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
>>    2) made the UI for type1 export default to requesting an
>> OtherSubrsFile, and had it look in a standard place in the filesystem
> 
> How about scripted export to Type1 format?

I don't think i understand your proposal, or how it fits into the
resolution for #665334.  could you explain in more detail?

	--dkg

Message #40 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Fabian Greffrath" <fabian@greffrath.com>

To: "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

Cc: "Fabian Greffrath" <fabian@greffrath.com>, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: Bug#665334: proposed plan to resolve fontforge non-dfsg-freeness

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:03:40 +0200

Hi Daniel,

> I don't think i understand your proposal, or how it fits into the
> resolution for #665334.  could you explain in more detail?

sorry for not making myself clear.

You proposed to modify the fontforge UI to request an OtherSubrsFile when
export fo Type1 format is selected. However, it is also possible to
convert font files into Type1 format by means of fontforge scripts, thus
without involving the UI. My question was how to handle these cases.

 - Fabian

Message #45 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

To: Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>

Cc: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: Bug#665334: proposed plan to resolve fontforge non-dfsg-freeness

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:22:20 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 08/30/2012 03:03 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
>> I don't think i understand your proposal, or how it fits into the
>> resolution for #665334.  could you explain in more detail?
> 
> sorry for not making myself clear.
> 
> You proposed to modify the fontforge UI to request an OtherSubrsFile when
> export fo Type1 format is selected. However, it is also possible to
> convert font files into Type1 format by means of fontforge scripts, thus
> without involving the UI. My question was how to handle these cases.

i suppose the function would need to take another parameter indicating
the subroutine source file (perhaps it could be optional, with a default
pointing to the same expected location in the filesystem?)

would that satisfy your concern?  I don't have a proof-of-concept, but
i'd be happy to see one cooked up :)

	--dkg

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #50 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: Bug#665334: Bug#665334: proposed plan to resolve fontforge non-dfsg-freeness

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:46:32 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Just a quick note to mention that all this flies miles over my head
but I'm hapy to see that we might finally have a solution to
this.....and I will be glad to help in any way I can (which, for this
issue, summarizes to "upload what has been cooked up"......something
the dkg can do very well also).

Still, just wanted to mention that you're not alone in the dark, guys..:-)

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #55 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny@eglug.org>

To: Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: Bug#665334: Bug#665334: proposed plan to resolve fontforge non-dfsg-freeness

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:21:37 +0200

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> > I don't think i understand your proposal, or how it fits into the
> > resolution for #665334.  could you explain in more detail?
> 
> sorry for not making myself clear.
> 
> You proposed to modify the fontforge UI to request an OtherSubrsFile when
> export fo Type1 format is selected. However, it is also possible to
> convert font files into Type1 format by means of fontforge scripts, thus
> without involving the UI. My question was how to handle these cases.

There already a preference in Preferences → Generic → OtherSubrsFile,
that does exactly that. Pyhthon scripting has defaultOtherSubrs() and
readOtherSubrsFile(), the other scripting has something similar.

What is needed, I think, is a way to set a default OtherSubrsFile at
build time.

Regards,
 Khaled

Message #60 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

To: "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge #665334

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 08:33:25 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Given enough time, Adobe could publish the MM othersubr code under an OpenSource license. However,  although the Adobe Type Dept could  request this pretty quickly, it would take many months to actually happen  - the this will sit at the bottom of the legal groups's priority list for a long time.

I am not familiar with the context for this thread. However, it seems to me that the font forge code could simply be eliminated. This MM subrs in question is needed only for making new MM Type1 fonts, which is a bad idea. The MM format is not supported in OpenType, and over time, support for authoring with plain Type 1 fonts is getting steadily sketchier. Of course, MM Type1 fonts in existing documents will need to be supported indefintely – PDF's and fonts are forever.

- Read Roberts
Adopbe Type Dept

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #65 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

To: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge #665334

Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:11:05 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Read--

Thanks for the thoughtful and helpful followup!  Comments below:

On 09/04/2012 11:33 AM, Read Roberts wrote:
> Given enough time, Adobe could publish the MM othersubr code under an OpenSource license. However,  although the Adobe Type Dept could  request this pretty quickly, it would take many months to actually happen  - the this will sit at the bottom of the legal groups's priority list for a long time.

Even if it takes a long time, this would be great.  If you're part of
the Adobe Type Dept, could you make the request internally and let us
know what its status is?

Even if it takes a long time, it would be nice to have that licensing
change done (and maybe it would encourage adobe to publish its examples
with more liberal licenses going forward as well).

> I am not familiar with the context for this thread.

You can read the background here: http://bugs.debian.org/665334 -- feel
free to ask questions if parts of the discussion aren't clear.

> However, it seems to me that the font forge code could simply be eliminated. This MM subrs in question is needed only for making new MM Type1 fonts, which is a bad idea. The MM format is not supported in OpenType, and over time, support for authoring with plain Type 1 fonts is getting steadily sketchier. Of course, MM Type1 fonts in existing documents will need to be supported indefintely – PDF's and fonts are forever.

we're leaning roughly in this direction, as described in
http://bugs.debian.org/665334 .  But as you say, these things are
"forever", and we'd like to enable people to build old fonts cleanly on
new systems if they find they need them for whatever reason.

Regards,

	--dkg

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #70 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <bastien.roucaries@u-cergy.fr>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [fontforge] Possible replacement

Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:47:09 +0100

Package: fontforge

Please see this thread it seems that we could reimplement OtherSubrs a

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr&fromgroups=#!topic/comp.lang.postscript/KVEA6v8am4Q
and 
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr&fromgroups=#!topic/comp.lang.postscript/slZmIvTxjKQ

thanks

Message #75 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <bastien.roucaries@u-cergy.fr>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [fontforge] generic bug

Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:03:09 +0100

control: clone -1
Control: retitle -1 A lot of type 1 fonts include Adobe all right reserved code
Control: reassign -1 generic

On my debian box they are 34 font file included adobe all right reserved code
find . -name *.pfb -exec t1disasm {} \;  | grep -i "Copyright (c) 1987-1990 Adobe Systems Incorporated." | wc
     34     238    1836

Code snippet is here;

% Copyright (c) 1987-1990 Adobe Systems Incorporated.
% All Rights Reserved.
% This code to be used for Flex and hint replacement.
% Version 1.1
[ systemdict /internaldict known
{1183615869 systemdict /internaldict get exec
/FlxProc known {save true} {false} ifelse}
{userdict /internaldict known not {
userdict /internaldict
{count 0 eq
{/internaldict errordict /invalidaccess get exec} if
dup type /integertype ne
{/internaldict errordict /invalidaccess get exec} if
dup 1183615869 eq
{pop 0}
{/internaldict errordict /invalidaccess get exec}
ifelse
}
dup 14 get 1 25 dict put
bind executeonly put
} if
1183615869 userdict /internaldict get exec
/FlxProc known {save true} {false} ifelse}
ifelse
[
systemdict /internaldict known not
{100 dict /begin cvx /mtx matrix /def cvx} if
systemdict /currentpacking known {currentpacking true setpacking} if
{
systemdict /internaldict known {
1183615869 systemdict /internaldict get exec
dup /$FlxDict known not {
dup dup length exch maxlength eq
{pop userdict dup /$FlxDict known not
{100 dict begin /mtx matrix def
dup /$FlxDict currentdict put end} if}
{100 dict begin /mtx matrix def
dup /$FlxDict currentdict put end}
ifelse
} if
/$FlxDict get begin

Message #86 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:18:03 +0100

/usr/share/fonts$ find . -name *.pfb -exec t1disasm {} \;  | grep
"Copyright (c) 1987-1990 Adobe Systems Incorporated." | wc

I get 68 file font with license problem.

Message #97 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

To: "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Cc: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

Subject: Adobe font hinting

Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 15:40:24 +0100

Dear read,

Any new of the relicencing effort of font hinting at adobe.

This problem is more important than we think at first time. A lot of
debian fonts are affected, even ghostscript one.

Who is the person what we should contact at adobe ?

Bastien

Message #102 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

To: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

Cc: "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Adobe font hinting

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:19:28 +0100

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hello Bastian;
>
> I am the person would would address any problems in the Adobe 'autohint'
> program. However, I'm not sure what issue you are referencing. I have on
> file a request from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> to make
> the MM subsrs OpenSource, so that FontForge can build MM fonts. I do plan
> to make the AFDKO OpenSource, and would include the MM subrs, as well as
> the autohint code. This is currently scheduled for late 2013, but could
> easily slip for another 6 months.


Thanks

I am talking about this code and the variant without font hinting
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/opentype/index_ps_code3.html
>
> Bets regards,
>  Read Roberts
>
>
>
> On 12/9/12 6:40 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Dear read,
>>
>>Any new of the relicencing effort of font hinting at adobe.
>>
>>This problem is more important than we think at first time. A lot of
>>debian fonts are affected, even ghostscript one.
>>
>>Who is the person what we should contact at adobe ?
>>
>>Bastien
>

Message #107 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

To: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

Cc: "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Adobe font hinting

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:31:58 -0800

I see that this set of PS code that needs to be OepnSource includes all
the OtherSubrs, not just the MM OtherSubrs.

Same answer as for the OtherSubrs MM code: Sounds like a good idea to make
this OpenSource. It is not a lot of work, but the Type Dept is low on
legal resources. I will take this up within the Adobe Type Dept, and see
if we can get this done before the AFDKO goes OpenSource, which is at
least a year away.


- Read Roberts


On 12/10/12 9:19 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hello Bastian;
>>
>> I am the person would would address any problems in the Adobe 'autohint'
>> program. However, I'm not sure what issue you are referencing. I have on
>> file a request from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> to make
>> the MM subsrs OpenSource, so that FontForge can build MM fonts. I do
>>plan
>> to make the AFDKO OpenSource, and would include the MM subrs, as well as
>> the autohint code. This is currently scheduled for late 2013, but could
>> easily slip for another 6 months.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>I am talking about this code and the variant without font hinting
>http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/opentype/index_ps_code3.html
>>
>> Bets regards,
>>  Read Roberts
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/12 6:40 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear read,
>>>
>>>Any new of the relicencing effort of font hinting at adobe.
>>>
>>>This problem is more important than we think at first time. A lot of
>>>debian fonts are affected, even ghostscript one.
>>>
>>>Who is the person what we should contact at adobe ?
>>>
>>>Bastien
>>

Message #112 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

To: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>, "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Adobe font hinting

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:11:45 -0800

Hello Bastian;

I am the person would would address any problems in the Adobe 'autohint'
program. However, I'm not sure what issue you are referencing. I have on
file a request from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> to make
the MM subsrs OpenSource, so that FontForge can build MM fonts. I do plan
to make the AFDKO OpenSource, and would include the MM subrs, as well as
the autohint code. This is currently scheduled for late 2013, but could
easily slip for another 6 months.

Bets regards,
 Read Roberts



On 12/9/12 6:40 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dear read,
>
>Any new of the relicencing effort of font hinting at adobe.
>
>This problem is more important than we think at first time. A lot of
>debian fonts are affected, even ghostscript one.
>
>Who is the person what we should contact at adobe ?
>
>Bastien

Message #123 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

To: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

Cc: "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Adobe font hinting

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:41:33 +0100

Dear robert,

Any news of the font hint license problem ?

I suppose it is late.

Thank you by advance.

Bastien

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hello Bastian;
>
> I am the person would would address any problems in the Adobe 'autohint'
> program. However, I'm not sure what issue you are referencing. I have on
> file a request from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> to make
> the MM subsrs OpenSource, so that FontForge can build MM fonts. I do plan
> to make the AFDKO OpenSource, and would include the MM subrs, as well as
> the autohint code. This is currently scheduled for late 2013, but could
> easily slip for another 6 months.
>
> Bets regards,
>  Read Roberts
>
>
>
> On 12/9/12 6:40 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Dear read,
>>
>>Any new of the relicencing effort of font hinting at adobe.
>>
>>This problem is more important than we think at first time. A lot of
>>debian fonts are affected, even ghostscript one.
>>
>>Who is the person what we should contact at adobe ?
>>
>>Bastien
>

Message #128 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

To: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>, Dave McAllister <dmcallis@adobe.com>

Cc: "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Adobe font hinting

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:12:57 +0200

What is the status of the autohinting license for fonts ?

Bastien

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hello Bastian;
>
> I am the person would would address any problems in the Adobe 'autohint'
> program. However, I'm not sure what issue you are referencing. I have on
> file a request from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> to make
> the MM subsrs OpenSource, so that FontForge can build MM fonts. I do plan
> to make the AFDKO OpenSource, and would include the MM subrs, as well as
> the autohint code. This is currently scheduled for late 2013, but could
> easily slip for another 6 months.
>
> Bets regards,
>  Read Roberts

Any news
>
>
>
> On 12/9/12 6:40 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Dear read,
>>
>>Any new of the relicencing effort of font hinting at adobe.
>>
>>This problem is more important than we think at first time. A lot of
>>debian fonts are affected, even ghostscript one.
>>
>>Who is the person what we should contact at adobe ?
>>
>>Bastien
>

Message #133 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

To: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>, Dave McAllister <dmcallis@adobe.com>

Cc: "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Adobe font hinting

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:29:39 +0000

I am working on this now, and the major legal hurdles have been cleared.
It may still be several months for all the paperwork to get done, but I
will have finished the development work within a week or two. Definitely
happening by August.

- Read Roberts 

On 4/13/14, 6:12 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
wrote:

>What is the status of the autohinting license for fonts ?
>
>Bastien
>
>On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hello Bastian;
>>
>> I am the person would would address any problems in the Adobe 'autohint'
>> program. However, I'm not sure what issue you are referencing. I have on
>> file a request from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> to make
>> the MM subsrs OpenSource, so that FontForge can build MM fonts. I do
>>plan
>> to make the AFDKO OpenSource, and would include the MM subrs, as well as
>> the autohint code. This is currently scheduled for late 2013, but could
>> easily slip for another 6 months.
>>
>> Bets regards,
>>  Read Roberts
>
>Any news
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/12 6:40 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dear read,
>>>
>>>Any new of the relicencing effort of font hinting at adobe.
>>>
>>>This problem is more important than we think at first time. A lot of
>>>debian fonts are affected, even ghostscript one.
>>>
>>>Who is the person what we should contact at adobe ?
>>>
>>>Bastien
>>

Message #148 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

To: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

Cc: Dave McAllister <dmcallis@adobe.com>, "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Adobe font hinting

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:44:41 +0100

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
> I am working on this now, and the major legal hurdles have been cleared.
> It may still be several months for all the paperwork to get done, but I
> will have finished the development work within a week or two. Definitely
> happening by August.

I am getting some news of the  OtherSubrs relicencing.

Bastien
>
> - Read Roberts
>
> On 4/13/14, 6:12 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>What is the status of the autohinting license for fonts ?
>>
>>Bastien
>>
>>On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Bastian;
>>>
>>> I am the person would would address any problems in the Adobe 'autohint'
>>> program. However, I'm not sure what issue you are referencing. I have on
>>> file a request from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> to make
>>> the MM subsrs OpenSource, so that FontForge can build MM fonts. I do
>>>plan
>>> to make the AFDKO OpenSource, and would include the MM subrs, as well as
>>> the autohint code. This is currently scheduled for late 2013, but could
>>> easily slip for another 6 months.
>>>
>>> Bets regards,
>>>  Read Roberts
>>
>>Any news
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/9/12 6:40 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dear read,
>>>>
>>>>Any new of the relicencing effort of font hinting at adobe.
>>>>
>>>>This problem is more important than we think at first time. A lot of
>>>>debian fonts are affected, even ghostscript one.
>>>>
>>>>Who is the person what we should contact at adobe ?
>>>>
>>>>Bastien
>>>
>

Message #153 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Gardner <gardnermj@gmail.com>

To: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

Cc: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Adobe font hinting

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:14:51 -0700

What's the status of the autohint relicensing?

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
> I am working on this now, and the major legal hurdles have been cleared.
> It may still be several months for all the paperwork to get done, but I
> will have finished the development work within a week or two. Definitely
> happening by August.

Message #158 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 12:31:10 +0100

Ping?

Message #163 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

To: Michael Gardner <gardnermj@gmail.com>, 665334@bugs.debian.org, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: Adobe font hinting

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:05:49 -0500

On Tue 2015-06-23 20:14:51 -0400, Michael Gardner wrote:
> What's the status of the autohint relicensing?
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com> wrote:
>> I am working on this now, and the major legal hurdles have been cleared.
>> It may still be several months for all the paperwork to get done, but I
>> will have finished the development work within a week or two. Definitely
>> happening by August.

Any word on this, Read?

    --dkg

Message #168 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, Michael Gardner <gardnermj@gmail.com>, "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: Adobe font hinting

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:40:16 +0000

The autohint code is now all open source, within the github depot at:

https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/afdko


- Read

On 11/24/15, 3:05 PM, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:

>On Tue 2015-06-23 20:14:51 -0400, Michael Gardner wrote:
>> What's the status of the autohint relicensing?
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>
>>wrote:
>>> I am working on this now, and the major legal hurdles have been
>>>cleared.
>>> It may still be several months for all the paperwork to get done, but I
>>> will have finished the development work within a week or two.
>>>Definitely
>>> happening by August.
>
>Any word on this, Read?
>
>    --dkg

Message #173 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp>

To: 694308@bugs.debian.org, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

Subject: Re: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:18:18 +0900

Hi,

>The originals of several of these functions seem to appear (with
>non-DFSG-free licensing) in the appendices of
>http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/font/5015.Type1_Supp.pdf
>
>In particular, the licensing says:
>
>>>> This code, as well as the code in the following appendices, is copyrighted by
>>>> Adobe Systems Incorporated, and may not be reproduced except by
>>>> permission of Adobe Systems Incorporated. Adobe Systems Incorporated
>>>> grants permission to use this code in Type 1 font programs, as long as the
>>>> code is used as it appears in this document, the copyright notice remains
>>>> intact, and the character outline code included in such a font program is
>>>> neither copied nor derived from character outline code in any Adobe Systems
>>>> font program.


>> https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/blob/master/fontforge/othersubrs.c

This code seems to be based on
https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/afdko/tree/master/FDK/Tools/Programs/public/lib/source/t1write/t1write_flexothers.*
and now Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType (AFDKO) is licensed under
Apache-2.0 license. Fontforge is licensed under GPL-3, so it's not a
problem to embedded it.

Thanks, Read and other folks in Adobe :)
Bug#665334 "non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge" is solved.



However, I don't know it is okay for other pfb files with license conflicts.
Apache-2.0 conflicts with GPL-2, at least, and it may conflict with
other license,
too.

Just "type 1 fonts include Adobe all right reserved code" is not a problem, but
if those type 1 fonts would be licensed under certain license like GPL-2 that
conflict with Apache-2.0...?

And, how can I think about fontforge copies snippet to generate those
*.pfb files?

It's for Bug#694308.

Message #178 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>

To: Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp>, 694308@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "665334@bugs.debian.org" <665334@bugs.debian.org>, Read Roberts <rroberts@adobe.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#694308: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:55:48 +0100

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>The originals of several of these functions seem to appear (with
>>non-DFSG-free licensing) in the appendices of
>>http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/font/5015.Type1_Supp.pdf
>>
>>In particular, the licensing says:
>>
>>>>> This code, as well as the code in the following appendices, is copyrighted by
>>>>> Adobe Systems Incorporated, and may not be reproduced except by
>>>>> permission of Adobe Systems Incorporated. Adobe Systems Incorporated
>>>>> grants permission to use this code in Type 1 font programs, as long as the
>>>>> code is used as it appears in this document, the copyright notice remains
>>>>> intact, and the character outline code included in such a font program is
>>>>> neither copied nor derived from character outline code in any Adobe Systems
>>>>> font program.
>
>
>>> https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/blob/master/fontforge/othersubrs.c
>
> This code seems to be based on
> https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/afdko/tree/master/FDK/Tools/Programs/public/lib/source/t1write/t1write_flexothers.*
> and now Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType (AFDKO) is licensed under
> Apache-2.0 license. Fontforge is licensed under GPL-3, so it's not a
> problem to embedded it.
>
> Thanks, Read and other folks in Adobe :)
> Bug#665334 "non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge" is solved.
>
>
>
> However, I don't know it is okay for other pfb files with license conflicts.
> Apache-2.0 conflicts with GPL-2, at least, and it may conflict with
> other license,
> too.
>
> Just "type 1 fonts include Adobe all right reserved code" is not a problem, but
> if those type 1 fonts would be licensed under certain license like GPL-2 that
> conflict with Apache-2.0...?

If it is GPL-2+ it is not a problem but a few fonts file are released
under GPL-2 only... It is quite a mess.

> And, how can I think about fontforge copies snippet to generate those
> *.pfb files?

Could you modify comment on this code to add some fontforge comment ?
Like for instance "inserted by  fontforge (debian someversion)". I
could teach lintian to check if font are regenerated.
What do you think?

Bastien
>
> It's for Bug#694308.
>

Message #183 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vasudev Kamath <vasudev@copyninja.info>

To: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 665334-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge (currently August 2014)

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:47:01 +0530

Hi Dkg,

Do you still find this problem in latest fontforge in Debian
experimental?.. I did a quick search in fontforge/othersubrs.c file I
did not find exact license text you posted.

Since I became the new maintainer of fontforge, this bug popped up on my
Maintainer Dashboard :-). So wondering if this issue still affects
fontforge or not.

Cheers,
vasudev

Message #191 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

To: Vasudev Kamath <vasudev@copyninja.info>, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 665334-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge (currently August 2014)

Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:12:04 -0400

Hi Vasudev--

On Sat 2016-07-30 03:17:01 -0400, Vasudev Kamath wrote:

> Do you still find this problem in latest fontforge in Debian
> experimental?.. I did a quick search in fontforge/othersubrs.c file I
> did not find exact license text you posted.

I don't see that license text either, but there are several weird
references to adobe in fontforge/othersubrs.c which i don't really know
how to interpret clearly.

> Since I became the new maintainer of fontforge, this bug popped up on my
> Maintainer Dashboard :-). So wondering if this issue still affects
> fontforge or not.

well, the specific text i pointed out as problematic is gone.  But there
are still provocative statements like:

  These subroutines are code by Adobe for this exact use (from
  T1_Spec.pdf)


or:

  static const char *copyright[] = {
        "% Copyright (c) 1987-1990 Adobe Systems Incorporated.",
        "% All Rights Reserved.",
        "% This code to be used for Flex and hint replacement.",
        "% Version 1.1",
        NULL
  };


but i confess i've lost track of how to interpret them, sorry :(

    --dkg

Message #199 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vasudev Kamath <vasudev@copyninja.info>

To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>

Cc: 665334@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: non-DFSG postscript embedded in fontforge (currently August 2014)

Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 20:52:39 +0530

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes:

> Hi Vasudev--
>
> On Sat 2016-07-30 03:17:01 -0400, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
>
>> Do you still find this problem in latest fontforge in Debian
>> experimental?.. I did a quick search in fontforge/othersubrs.c file I
>> did not find exact license text you posted.
>
> I don't see that license text either, but there are several weird
> references to adobe in fontforge/othersubrs.c which i don't really know
> how to interpret clearly.

Same here.

>
>> Since I became the new maintainer of fontforge, this bug popped up on my
>> Maintainer Dashboard :-). So wondering if this issue still affects
>> fontforge or not.
>
> well, the specific text i pointed out as problematic is gone.  But there
> are still provocative statements like:
>
>   These subroutines are code by Adobe for this exact use (from
>   T1_Spec.pdf)
>
>
> or:
>
>   static const char *copyright[] = {
>         "% Copyright (c) 1987-1990 Adobe Systems Incorporated.",
>         "% All Rights Reserved.",
>         "% This code to be used for Flex and hint replacement.",
>         "% Version 1.1",
>         NULL
>   };
>
>
> but i confess i've lost track of how to interpret them, sorry :(

Yeah I noticed them.

Hello fellow fonts team members :-). Do you guys have some suggestion here?.

Message #249 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andy Simpkins <rattusrattus@debian.org>

To: karen@debian.org, 665334@bugs.debian.org, 694320@bugs.debian.org, 694323@bugs.debian.org

Subject: non-DFSG & Type 1 Postscript embedded fonts

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:35:18 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Karen,

At the Cambridge BSP (Jan 27/28 2017) we have been looking at the
following bugs pertaining to non-DFSG compliance with fonts embedded
with non-free code:
 * http://bugs.debian.org/665334
     opened 23 Mar 2012, last update 01 Aug 2016 modulo spam
 * http://bugs.debian.org/694320
     opened 25 Nov 2012, last update 30 Aug 2014
     blocked by #665334
 * http://bugs.debian.org/694323
     opened 25 Nov 2012, last update 30 Aug 2014
     blocked by #665334

Synopsis:
  Type 1 fonts that are made using the package FontForge include font
hinting code which is marked "copyright Adobe all rights reserved".
This issue logically extends to every package that contains fonts that
have been made using FontForge.

Current State
  Reading #665334 it appears that FontForge historically contained
fragments of code with Adobe asserted rights.  We believe that this is
now resolved with "autohint code is now all open source".  The github
repo is top licensed Apache 2.0  [1]

  It is our belief that this is sufficient; that the package FontForge,
and type 1 fonts generated by this package are now DFSG compliant
because Apache 2.0 is GPL2+ compatible.

* Is our understanding of the above correct? i.e. Does the github
repository top-licensing (to Apache) of the Adobe 'hinting' properly apply?

* Are the font hinting fragments, that are Adobe copyright, embedded
into fonts produced in FontForge, the same code as in the above
repository (we *think* that this is the case)?

* Thus, are these fonts (generated by the above) now covered by Apache 2.0?

* And, consequently: are the fonts in the Debian archive, produced by
FontForge, now to be considered under Apache 2.0; and is this sufficient
to cover the embedded fragments under Apache 2.0?

Assuming the above is all correct then, in order to resolve this issue,
we believe that all packages that contain fonts that are generated using
FontForge should contain an appropriate licence text for the font.  A
Mass bug filing could then be made against these packages requesting the
appropriate update to the licence file.


However we see this a potential minefield, and therefore seek
clarification and advice before we continue.


/Andy
PP Debian BSP Cambridge Jan 2017 [2]


[1]  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=665334#168
[2]  https://wiki.debian.org/BSP/2017/01/gb/Cambridge

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #254 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: Andy Simpkins <rattusrattus@debian.org>, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Cc: karen@debian.org, 694320@bugs.debian.org, 694323@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: non-DFSG & Type 1 Postscript embedded fonts

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 21:18:57 +0800

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote:

>   It is our belief that this is sufficient; that the package FontForge,
> and type 1 fonts generated by this package are now DFSG compliant
> because Apache 2.0 is GPL2+ compatible.

The FSF believes that Apache 2.0 is only compatible with GPLv3+ not GPLv2.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Message #259 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andy Simpkins <rattusrattus@debian.org>

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>, 665334@bugs.debian.org

Cc: karen@debian.org, 694320@bugs.debian.org, 694323@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: non-DFSG & Type 1 Postscript embedded fonts

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:08:08 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 29/01/17 13:18, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote:
>
>>   It is our belief that this is sufficient; that the package FontForge,
>> and type 1 fonts generated by this package are now DFSG compliant
>> because Apache 2.0 is GPL2+ compatible.
> The FSF believes that Apache 2.0 is only compatible with GPLv3+ not GPLv2.
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>
Well Paul you are entirely correct. 
Would you believe that pretty much everyone here missed that one -
despite the fact that nearly every person did proof this :-)

OK so what does that mean?

GPL2 stuff could be problematic but ultimately the suggested action(s)
would still appear valid...  Karen your thoughts on this would be
greatly appreciated....

/Andy

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #264 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Karen Sandler <karen@debian.org>

To: Andy Simpkins <rattusrattus@debian.org>

Cc: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>, 665334@bugs.debian.org, karen@debian.org, 694320@bugs.debian.org, 694323@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#665334: non-DFSG & Type 1 Postscript embedded fonts

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:09:41 -0500

On 2017-01-29 10:08, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> On 29/01/17 13:18, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> 
> It is our belief that this is sufficient; that the package FontForge,
> and type 1 fonts generated by this package are now DFSG compliant
> because Apache 2.0 is GPL2+ compatible.
> The FSF believes that Apache 2.0 is only compatible with GPLv3+ not 
> GPLv2.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I agree with the FSF. But it is also technically 
correct to say that it's compatible with GPLv2+, because you can take 
GPLv2+ works under GPLv3.

> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

There have been fascinating discussions about this somewhat recently, as 
LLVM had an exception drafted to Apache 2.0 by Heather Meeker to deal 
with the incompatibility.

> Well Paul you are entirely correct.
> Would you believe that pretty much everyone here missed that one -
> despite the fact that nearly every person did proof this :-)
> 
> OK so what does that mean?
> 
> GPL2 stuff could be problematic but ultimately the suggested action(s)
> would still appear valid...  Karen your thoughts on this would be
> greatly appreciated....

I'd be happy to discuss more in a nonpublic venue and get more 
information about the situation. Unfortunately, I'm headed out to Campus 
Party Brasil today, and headed straight to Brussels for FOSDEM from 
there, and won't free up until after February 7.

karen

Message #273 received at 665334-submitter@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Generalni financni reditelstvi" <Jan.Bauch@benu.cz>

To: <665334-submitter@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Prosvihli jste lhutu pro dane? Jeste mate cas vyhnout se pokute.

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:24:29 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Uprava od 12. 11. 2019

Danovy rad zasadne meni lhutu, ve ktere je mozne vymerit dan.

Nova uprava ovlivni termin k podani:

priznani k dani z prijmu
vyuctovani dane z prijmu vybirane srazkou
vyuctovani dane z prijmu ze zavisle cinnosti

Pokud drive podnikatel podal danove priznani se zpozdenim:

Nejnizsi pokuta podle § 250 danoveho radu pritom cini 800 Kc a nejvyssi 500 000 Kc.

Informace k novele zakona o danich z prijmu v priloze.

[Dodatec c.3.doc (application/msword, attachment)]

Message #276 received at 665334-submitter@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Valentina Aulisa" <news@best5cryptosites.com>

To: <665334-submitter@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Hodnoty pohledávky. Dôvodová správa.

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:52:55 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dobrý den,

Do dnešního dne jste nesplnili Vaši zákonnou povinnost a nevrátili mi zaplacenou finanční částku, kterou jste byli povinni mi vrátit.

V opačném případě budu nucen obrátit se se svým nárokem na soud s návrhem na vydání platebního rozkazu. Věřím však, že to nebude nutné.
 
 Dôvodová správa v příloze (zahrnuje fakturu a smlouvu).
 
 S pozdravem,
 Valentina Aulisa
 advokát/attorney at law
 Opatovická 1677/2, Praha 1

[Dôvodová správa č.1 (2137-0041).doc (application/msword, attachment)]

Message #279 received at 665334-submitter@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tomáš Linhart <dylan@healthyorganicsupplements.com>

To: <665334-submitter@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Fwd: Doplatek na úcet c.1 (0093-51387)

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:24:20 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dobrý den,

kontrolou naší účetní evidence jsme zjistili, že jste nám dosud neuhradili dlužnou částku ve výši 8.340,- Kč.

V opačném případě budu nucen/a obrátit se se svým nárokem na soud s návrhem na vydání platebního rozkazu. Věřím však, že to nebude nutné.

S pozdravem,
Tomáš Linhart
advokat/attorney at law
Opatovicka 1653/4, Praha 1

[Dôvodová správa č.1 (0093-5155).doc (application/msword, attachment)]

Message #284 received at 665334@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vít Kucera <sale@digitalnews-online.com>

To: <665334@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Fwd:fwd: Doplatek na úcet c.1 (0093-51356)

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:24:20 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dobrý den,

kontrolou naší účetní evidence jsme zjistili, že jste nám dosud neuhradili dlužnou částku ve výši 8.340,- Kč.

V opačném případě budu nucen/a obrátit se se svým nárokem na soud s návrhem na vydání platebního rozkazu. Věřím však, že to nebude nutné.

S pozdravem,
Vít Kucera
advokat/attorney at law
Opatovicka 1651/4, Praha 1

[Dôvodová správa č.1 (0093-5161).doc (application/msword, attachment)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.