Re: Bug#182402: ttf-freefont is violating the GNU GPL
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:22:25PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:10:58AM +1100, Peter Hawkins wrote:
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it.
> If you can legitimately justify that the preferred form for
> modifications is the ttf files, then by all means, distribute them as
> source. But I would argue that is not the case. The README  states:
Ok. I'll accept that - I wasn't reading the GPL that closely.
> > In fact, if you pay close attention to the file dates in the upstream
> > archive, it appears freefont-ttf-20020306.tar.gz is the newest release
> > for the TTF files, and freefont-sfd.tar.gz (dated 2003/02/19) is the
> > newest release of the SFD files. Even upstream doesn't seem to release
> > SFD files quite as often as TTF files.
> Excuse me? 2003 is sooner than 2002.
Sorry, brain is asleep (not much sleep last night).
> > > I recommend that you immediately upload a package containing the
> > > source SFD files to satisfy our licensing obligations. You should use
> > > both http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-ttf.tar.gz
> > > and http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-sfd.tar.gz to
> > > construct the package.
> > Well, I can do this but I would like an opinion from debian-legal before
> > I haemorrhage archive space like this (this would triple the size of the
> > source package from 1.2mb to more like 3.9mb). If you really thought
> > this was the way to go, I guess I would instead Build-Depend on pfaedit
> > and have to automate the generation of the TrueType fonts.
> It really doesn't matter to me how you do it. I don't know if pfaedit
> can create ttf files from the command line, though.
It can, but I don't totally understand the finer details of how it is
done. I email upstream earlier to ask. I'll upload a 'fat' package as
suggested soon, and a better package when I get an upstream response.
> > > As well, the debian/copyright notice does not actually specify
> > > the correct copyright statement. I suggest revising it thus:
> This needs to be fixed anyway. The notice of copyright is important.