Discussion:
`verdana' package is missing although it is LPPL licensed
(too old to reply)
Denis Bitouzé
2018-09-17 14:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

AFAICS, `verdana' package:

┌────
│ https://ctan.org/pkg/verdana
└────

is missing although it is LPPL licensed. Is there any reason for that?

All the best.
--
Denis
Lars Madsen
2018-09-17 15:07:10 UTC
Permalink
It does not include the font itself.

AFAIR TeXLive does not distribute font support files for fonts not included in TeXLive.



/Lars Madsen
Institut for Matematik / Department of Mathematics
Aarhus Universitet / Aarhus University
Mere info: http://au.dk/***@math / More information: http://au.dk/en/***@math


________________________________________
From: tex-live <tex-live-bounces+daleif=***@tug.org> on behalf of Denis Bitouzé <***@univ-littoral.fr>
Sent: 17 September 2018 16:58
To: tex-***@tug.org
Subject: [tex-live] `verdana' package is missing although it is LPPL licensed

Hi,

AFAICS, `verdana' package:

┌────
│ https://ctan.org/pkg/verdana
└────

is missing although it is LPPL licensed. Is there any reason for that?

All the best.
--
Denis
Denis Bitouzé
2018-09-17 19:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lars Madsen
It does not include the font itself.
AFAIR TeXLive does not distribute font support files for fonts not included in TeXLive.
Well, I asked the question precisely because I thought I had already see
packages providing support for non free fonts. But I was probably wrong:
sorry for the noise.
--
Denis
Manfred Lotz
2018-09-17 15:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Hi Denis,

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:58:38 +0200
Post by Denis Bitouzé
Hi,
┌────
│ https://ctan.org/pkg/verdana
└────
is missing although it is LPPL licensed. Is there any reason for that?
All the best.
Just a guess. Texlive requires a package to include its documentation
source. AFAICS, there is verdana.pdf but no verdana.tex
(verdana.dtx/ins do no generate verdana.tex).
--
Manfred
Denis Bitouzé
2018-09-17 19:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Manfred Lotz
Hi Denis,
Hi Manfred,
Post by Manfred Lotz
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:58:38 +0200
Post by Denis Bitouzé
Hi,
┌────
│ https://ctan.org/pkg/verdana
└────
is missing although it is LPPL licensed. Is there any reason for that?
All the best.
Just a guess. Texlive requires a package to include its documentation
source. AFAICS, there is verdana.pdf but no verdana.tex
(verdana.dtx/ins do no generate verdana.tex).
Would it be related to the necessity to own the font for producing this
documentation?
--
Denis
Manfred Lotz
2018-09-30 14:07:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 21:11:02 +0200
Post by Denis Bitouzé
Post by Manfred Lotz
Hi Denis,
Hi Manfred,
Post by Manfred Lotz
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:58:38 +0200
Post by Denis Bitouzé
Hi,
┌────
│ https://ctan.org/pkg/verdana
└────
is missing although it is LPPL licensed. Is there any reason for that?
All the best.
Just a guess. Texlive requires a package to include its
documentation source. AFAICS, there is verdana.pdf but no
verdana.tex (verdana.dtx/ins do no generate verdana.tex).
Would it be related to the necessity to own the font for producing
this documentation?
I think basically it is necessary that a font used in the documentation
must be free, or if the package is about a font then that font must be
free.

Here my understanding regarding documentation and fonts in a package.

If a package can be added as a TeX Live package it must satisfy:

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

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

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

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 and it must be install-able as a TeX Live package.

Karl is the one to confirm or to correct me.
--
Manfred
Zdenek Wagner
2018-09-30 15:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Manfred Lotz
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 21:11:02 +0200
...
I think basically it is necessary that a font used in the documentation
must be free, or if the package is about a font then that font must be
free.
Here my understanding regarding documentation and fonts in a package.
1. The source of the package documentation must be included.
2. The font used in the package documentation must be free (mentioned
by Norbert).
3. The font used in the package documentation must be install-able as a
TeX Live package (mentioned by Lars).
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 and it must be install-able as a TeX Live package.
Karl is the one to confirm or to correct me.
Verdana is not a free font and if I remember it well, TeX Live contains
only support files for the free fonts.
Post by Manfred Lotz
--
Manfred
Zdeněk Wagner
http://ttsm.icpf.cas.cz/team/wagner.shtml
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz
Denis Bitouzé
2018-09-30 17:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Manfred Lotz
Post by Denis Bitouzé
Post by Manfred Lotz
Just a guess. Texlive requires a package to include its
documentation source. AFAICS, there is verdana.pdf but no
verdana.tex (verdana.dtx/ins do no generate verdana.tex).
Would it be related to the necessity to own the font for producing
this documentation?
I think basically it is necessary that a font used in the documentation
must be free, or if the package is about a font then that font must be
free.
Here my understanding regarding documentation and fonts in a package.
1. The source of the package documentation must be included.
2. The font used in the package documentation must be free (mentioned
by Norbert).
3. The font used in the package documentation must be install-able as a
TeX Live package (mentioned by Lars).
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 and it must be install-able as a TeX Live package.
Many thanks for the clarification.
--
Denis
Norbert Preining
2018-09-17 15:29:43 UTC
Permalink
TeX Live does not include support packages for non free fonts. Please use tlcontrib for that, where verdana is included.

See tlcontrib.trxlive.info

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
Denis Bitouzé
2018-09-17 19:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norbert Preining
TeX Live does not include support packages for non free fonts.
Please use tlcontrib for that, where verdana is included.
See tlcontrib.trxlive.info
OK, thanks. Sorry for the noise.
--
Denis
Karl Berry
2018-09-30 22:15:32 UTC
Permalink
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
Manfred Lotz
2018-10-01 05:30:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:15:32 GMT
Post by Manfred Lotz
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.
https://tug.org/texlive/pkgcontrib.html
Thanks a lot, Karl. That helped me a lot in understanding things better.
--
Manfred
Loading...