[Pkg-fonts-devel] The 0-th (very) rough (and incomplete) draft of a Font Policy

Christian PERRIER bubulle at debian.org
Sun Mar 27 07:52:48 UTC 2011

Quoting Rogério Brito (rbrito at ime.usp.br):

> * The definition of what a font foundry is.

Yeah, that's somehow tricky.

I would go for making the foundry optional and let this top the
package maintainer, or the person proposing the ITP to mention it or
not in the package name.

> * The issue of whether we should compile fonts or not for redistribution.

I follow Paul on this. I don't think we need to enforce providing
source files, but when they are here, we should build from them: this
is inline with the spirit of the DFSG, imho, as acheck that anyone
wanting to modify the "code" is still able to do it.

Moreover, in the case of fonts providing .sfd source files, we know
this often has been a good way to enlight some FontForge bugs...so,
again, I see this as inline with the DFSG spirit: allow users to
enhance (or debug) software we provide.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20110327/0bcf5093/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list