Xprint and ttf2pt1

Drew Parsons dparsons at debian.org
Fri May 16 01:01:01 PDT 2008

On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 09:02 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:19:11PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > The Xprt implementation was written making use of a modified version of
> > ttf2pt1 for some postscript handling. The modified ttf2pt1 had been in
> > the Xorg X11R6 monolithic source but was left out of the X11R7 xserver
> > module because it used the obnoxious 3-clause BSD licence with the
> > advertising clause.
> > 
> > Since xprint is now split off separately, I want to place the ttf2pt1
> > code back in the xprint source. I believe the requirements of the
> > advertising clause can be met by acknowledging use of ttf2pt1 in the
> > COPYING file.
> > 
> > Ideally the ttf2pt1 licence should be updated to modern BSD, but it's as
> > deprecated a project as xprint itself; I received no reply from the
> > ttf2pt1 authors I wrote to.  Those few who do find xprint useful (yes,
> > they do exist) can ensure their usage complies with the obnoxious BSD
> > licence requirements by acknowledging use of ttf2pt1 when appropriate
> > (in advertising material).
> > 
> > Since xprint has now been given its own separate module, this will
> > affect xprint only, not the standard xservers.
> Hmm, that's still a problem though, since the entire X.Org distribution
> (all the tarballs we ship under xorg auspices, and everything developed
> under xorg/), modulo GLX support, is MIT/BSD, and this is a guarantee
> we've repeatedly made.  This is why, e.g., Avivo was put under
> avivo/xf86-video-avivo, instead of xorg/driver/, because it was GPL, and
> why we don't have the Synaptics driver.

OK. I'll have another look at just how it gets by without ttf2pt1
altogether then.


More information about the xorg mailing list