Quoting Rogério Brito (rbrito@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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature