Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg@fifthhorseman.net): > On 04/12/2011 12:40 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > In short, I'm OK with considering *.ttf files as "source" files when > > nothing else is available. > > I think i'm in agreement with Christian here, though i would phrase it > differently: > > I'm OK with considering *.ttf files as "source" files when no other > preferred form for modification exists. > > That is, if the font maker upstream uses something else to generate the > .ttf (or .otf, etc) files, then the .ttf is *not* sufficient to satisfy > the DFSG. > > But when upstream just modifies and publishes .ttfs directly, there's no > reason for debian to demand another format. Exactly what I meant. It's good to have native speakers around..:-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature