Re: License stuff for ConTeXt

["Mojca Miklavec" <mojca.miklavec.lists@gmail.com>]

On 12/22/06, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> You know what is coming ...
>
> First statement: I would prefer to have context in Debian proper, but if
> we cannot get anyway with this, putting all the stuff into the nonfree
> section might be an option, although it doesn't sound right.
>
> Ok, I made a list of files in the for zips and took a look. Now it would
> be nice to have statements from the respective people about the license:
> Please see included stuff:
>
...
>
> cont-fnt contains a huge bunch of vf/afm/tfm/map files. I assume that
> they were generated from some fontinst source, but this is missing.

Hans will know that better, but if you're talking about cont-fnt I
assume that all these files were created with texfont.

afm files contain a header like:
Comment Converted at Fri Mar 18 12:57:24 2005 by ttf2afm from font
file `arial.ttf'
(I guess that texfont calls ttf2afm in that case)
map files contain:
% This file is generated by the TeXFont Perl script.

ConTeXt doesn't use/need fontinst. I assume that all the files were
created only once by running texfont script once per each
font/encoding, most probably manually (although one could easily
reconstruct the ten lines needed to do the conversion). But I don't
know whether the fact that one needs a commercial font in order to
create and use those supporting files matters or not.

> Anyway, there is no accompanying readme or whatsoever besides the one
> for lucida.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> cont-ext seems to be ok besides a few points:
>         t-lettrine.tex does not have a license statement
>         t-urwgaramond, type-urwgaramond, type-urwgothic: no license
>                                 statement
> A different thing is that the sources of many doc are not included:
> ./doc/context/third/bnf/t-bnf.pdf               NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/chromato/chromato-demo.pdf  NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/chromato/chromato-doc.pdf   NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/cmscbf/cmscbf-demo.pdf      NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/cmscbf/cmscbf-doc.pdf       NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/cmttbf/cmttbf-demo.pdf      NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/cmttbf/cmttbf-doc.pdf       NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/construction-plan/construction-plan-demo.pdf NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/construction-plan/construction-plan-doc.pdf NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/degrade/degrade-demo.pdf    NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/degrade/degrade-doc.pdf     NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/french/french-demo.pdf      NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/french/french-doc.pdf       NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/typearea/typearea-demo.pdf  NOSOURCE
> ./doc/context/third/typearea/typearea-doc.pdf   NOSOURCE
>
> So I would have to put them in something like context-nonfree (like
> other context documentation)

No. All those are all automatically generated from t-whatever.tex.

For example, to get french-demo.pdf you need to run
    texexec --mode=demo t-french.tex
and to get french-doc you need to run
    texexec --module t-french.tex

But now my question: when I process the document with "--module" (with
texexec.pl and pre-historic version of ConTeXt from april, if that's
relevant ;), I get a whole-page MP graphic on the first page. How are
the modulename-doc created? Are there any metapost-related settings
disabled or has the behavior of texexec changed in the meantime?

Mojca