[tex-live] EC license

Alexander Cherepanov cherepan at mccme.ru
Fri Aug 28 22:18:43 CEST 2009

Hi Robin!
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:34:00 +0100, Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>> While looking into licensing of LH fonts I stumbled upon a license for 
>> EC fonts parts of which are included in LH. copyrite.txt in the
>> distribution of EC fonts contain a custom license similar in spirit to 
>> LPPL but not equivalent to it (it predates LPPL).

> similar in spirit to the licence quoted for latex at the time the ec
> fonts were finally delivered -- 

That's even better. It makes changing the license to LPPL more logical 
and, hopefully, more likely.

> a licence spec which owes a lot to don.

As most things in tex world do:-)

>> One of the obnoxious 
>> clauses (but not the only one) is a restriction for renaming:
>>  * The names of the modified fonts must not start with the two letters
>>    `ec' or `tc'.
>> It's broader than that of ukhyphen.tex which was removed because of 
>> it, right? (Topic about ukhyphen.tex :
>> http://www.tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2006-May/thread.html#10224 .)
>> OTOH rsync://rsync.tex.ac.uk/CTANcatalogue/entries/e/ec.xml contains:
>>   <license type='lppl'/>

> (on the whole, it would have been better if you hadn't mentioned that
> rsync access to repository on an open archived list.  i have suppressed
> it.)

Not sure what's the problem but sorry for that.

Where is the official home for sources of tex catalogue then? The main 
page (e.g., 
http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/catalogue.html ) points 
to http://sarovar.org/projects/texcatalogue/ but last update there 
seems to be from 2006-09-27. Or did I miss something?

>> This looks like an error.

> though the file has me as its most recent editor, i can see no entry in
> the svn log that says i actually gave it that licence.  since i don't
> mention the readme in the catalogue entry, i suspect i've never actually

(Probably copyrite.txt, not readme.)

> read it before this evening :-( (you'll note that there's no mention of
> the readme in the repository -- you can still see that through html
> translations.)

You mean notes like that:

  <license type='lppl' checked='2006-04-25' username='frank'
  version='2e' file='legal.txt'/>

(from latex.xml).

How can I see it through html?

>> And http://wiki.debian.org/ProblematicCtanPackages lists it among "Less 
>> serious problems":
>>   EC fonts: strange license wording, asked Karl Berry to contact Jörg
>>   Knappen, the author
>> Was there any progress on the issue?

> note that joerg's fc fonts (latin-alike alphabets for african languages)

Thanks, I forgot about it.

> are gpl2.  this is straightforward, whereas what the readme in ec says
> doesn't feel coherent ... sort of trying to sound strict without quite
> thinking it all through from the start.

Yes, it's quite strong. Unfortunely this means that the license for LH 
fonts can not be changed to bare LPPL.

Alexander Cherepanov

More information about the tex-live mailing list