Re: [pdf-devel] Use of Adobe's CMap files in GNU PDF

[Karl Berry]

    To me this whole issue screams typical FSF: Legal
    issues are more interesting then technical ones.

I prefer to talk about GNU, rather than the FSF.  GNU is a technical
project, but even more fundamentally a social one; both kinds of issues
are "interesting", i.e., necessary.  Social/legal issues are usually a
lot harder to solve than technical ones; that doesn't make them more
interesting, just more frustrating.  I'm sure there is no need to
explain this to you, or to anyone on this list.

As far as a reason for wanting to "modify" the cmap files: suppose I get
some crazy idea and want to create an alternative format to PDF, and my
crazy idea requires making a variation on cmap files.  Obviously I want
to derive my "modified" cmap files from the existing ones (and equally
obviously I would make sure my files are clearly distinguishable from
the originals).  That is what we are asking, and that is what free
software is all about.

I have already asked Leonard to consider changing the cmap file license
along the lines of what was already done for the Adobe glyph list (for
the same reasons); as far as I can tell, all the same issues apply.
Thanks to Read Roberts at Adobe, the glyph list license was graciously
changed at our request (Werner Lemberg and I initiated the request in
the context of TeX, but all free software projects benefit) with a
minimum of fuss; I hope the same will happen here.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt

As you may know, there actually is a derived ("modified") glyphlist
file, namely texglyphlist.txt used by lcdf-typetools.  That would be
illegal under the present cmap (= old glyphlist) license.  So my
scenario above is not entirely a ridiculous fantasy.

Similar changes were also made to the license on Adobe's AFM files.

If you totally disagree and think I'm full of nonsense, fine, but I
don't see any use in debating it further.  We aren't going to abandon
our basic principles.

karl