https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
I haven't checked texlive lately but unless the fonts are packaged using the
Fedora packaging template they won't be available in fontconfig for non-tex
apps such as libreoffice.
It does not matter if they are packaged as texlive subpackages or as
independent projects as long as the template is applied. Also, whoever packages
them needs to ship some fontconfig files that aliases the various past names of
the fonts to the new one for backwards compat. Again there are templates to do
so in fontpackages-devel.
Reading
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/index_html#Licensing
they got URW to publish the fonts under their own pet license to avoid dealing
with Ghostscript licensing they didn't understood. So as long as they rebased
to that release with no ghostscript import they are ok legal-wise (do check
with spot if you feel like it, though I'm pretty sure he'd have blocked them
from TexLive during its TEX audits if there was still a problem).
That sucks if GS added fixes over URW material, but that's how free software
works when projects disagree on licensing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.