Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#617214: ITP: cantarell-fonts -- Humanist sans-serif font family
On 19/04/11 17:41, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 19 avril 2011 à 17:35 +0200, Nicolas Spalinger a écrit :
>> At this stage, and since there's no automated functional self-contained
>> buildpath, we won't create a Debian-specific one and we'll package only
>> the final font files, we're mostly waiting on upstream for satisfactory
>> resolution of GNOME #644201 and #635383 (versionning, license metadata,
>> copyright and credits issues). I feel that for long-term maintainership
>> and best practises, these issues are important to get right before
>> inclusion into main.
> I agree these are important issues and I appreciate your work on these
> topics, but I don’t think they should prevent inclusion in main.
Thanks for your answer, and thanks for your rocking work on GNOME
packaging among other things!
Although the bugs have some cosmetic elements thrown in as well there
are deeper issues: I still feel that getting the authorship elements
right is rather important. I guess I'm worried some upstreams may
consider that once the package is in main these issues can conveniently
be ignored and bugs left untouched...
>>>> I’m pretty sure the ftp-masters’ position on such topics is that as long
>>>> the sources are here, just installing the .otf files without rebuilding
>>>> them is fine.
>>> There are even font packages that contain only the binary font files
>>> (e.g. gsfonts) as long as the license is appropriate.
>> Yes, and the ftp-masters are making the right decision here: removing
>> quality open fonts for which we don't have a full reproducable buildpath
>> just yet but which satisfy the 4 freedoms would be a self-defeating
>> measure and would seriously hinder lots of practical uses of Debian for
>> many users. Better work on upstream advocacy to release as much source
>> as possible (which can include a bunch of different files including the
>> .ttf files themselves) and improve the open font design toolkit.
> And in the meantime, include the fonts in Debian. Right? :)
Yes, for buildpath issues certainly, but I feel that for unclear
licensing declarations and authorship, it's worth thinking over.
Interaction with upstream for such clarifications - like we've
successfully done for many fonts now packaged thanks to the work of many
in pkg-fonts - is worth it.
Sadly many font designers are not doing due diligence in these issues
and this is where pkg-fonts members have been very helpful in getting
there resolved by seriously reviewing, asking questions and pushing back
a little before inclusion.
FWIW, in my experience with following Dave Crossland's Cantarell project
since back in July 2009, it's really when interacting with releasing and
packaging goals that authorship, licensing and documentation issues
(obviously minor compared to the actual design work but still important
long-term) have been dealt with. We're almost there IMHO, that's why I'm
pushing (hopefully in a friendly way) for the last few items to be resolved.
SIL NRSI volunteer - http://scripts.sil.org
Debian fonts task force - http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org
Open font community - http://planet.open-fonts.org