On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:40 PM Jonas Smedegaard <
jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
Quoting Nathan Willis (2021-03-12 15:09:24)
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 1:56 PM Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
>
> >
> > The "progress" you mention really isn't: Debian has its own set of rules
> >
>
> Hi Jonas,
>
> Where did I say "progress"?
You didn't say it (and didn't write it either - in case those terms mean
something different to you).
When I put that word in quotes then my intention was not to quote you,
but to indicate that I myself was using the term sloppily to refer to
your describing new events that had happened since previous posts in
this thread.
I sincerely apologize if my choice of words and/or punctuation gave the
impression that I was trying to point fingers at you or frame you.
Oh, I certainly didn't take offense, though I think it was more than a little confusing because it came after "Like Paul, I encourage you to consider packaging this". I mean, I wasn't the person who originally asked about the font; I was only chiming in with a link to some new information I had seen.
That having been said, I still think I would consider the fact that the font is now browsable on a public repository (without a clickthrough agreement) and the fact that it has moved to a bog-standard license to both be movement in the right direction. (sure, obviously, assuming that the license it is posted under is for real, but considering that Dave is the one who created the repo and he has demonstrable history with keeping licenses in order, plus the fact that the Braille Institute has not had it taken down, I don't have reason to suspect foul play. And the license can be discussed now, which it couldn't before...)
Doesn't reduce it to a solved problem, no. But a few messages earlier, there had been concern voiced that the copyright holders were intentionally trying to be incompatible, so it's welcome news if such is not the case.
Nate
(PS - it's also a good reminder that there remains the unsolved problem of VFB/VFC sources....)
--