Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
> [snip]
>>We've got font debs ready to go.
>
>
> Please use non-reserved font names, so that Debian is allowed to add
> missing glyphs to the fonts.
Hi,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
The idea behind using reserved font names is to avoid conflicting
namespace between upstream and the various derivatives offering
different Unicode coverage and features. It's about keeping users from
expecting a feature which may not be present in a particular font. (See
FAQ entries 2.7 and 2.8 for more details:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web ) .
And yes, we'd like to get the right free software font licensing model
*recognized* by the Debian community so that *any DD or Debian
contributor* can improve the fonts either through patches sent upstream
or through a derivative offering better coverage of a specific script
(or Unicode block). It's true that there are *a lot* of missing glyphs
that need adding. What we intend the license to provide is a good
collaborative layer that will ultimately allow many more users to enjoy
Debian in their own language :-D
Ps: sorry for the late reply
--
Nicolas
Reply to: