"Frank Küster" <frank@debian.org> wrote in message [🔎] 86mzfsyfqc.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch">news:[🔎] 86mzfsyfqc.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch...
Except for the source issue. The concrete example, as you might have guessed, are the ANTP fonts, which are available as PostScript Type1, TrueType and OpenType fonts. I have heard a talk of the author, Janusz Nowacki, last week at the DANTE meeting, and I got the impression that in fact he uses FontForge or a similar editor, and doesn't use its scripting facilities (much). I'll ask him again, but it seems to me that in this case the PostScript Outlines are in fact the preferred form of modification for the author, and I see no reason not to accept this as source in the sense of the DFSG, since there doesn't seem to be anything better. Consequently, the fonts would be free. What do you think?
IANAL, IANADD.It does not matter which is the prefered form of modification as long as it is included. It is not even nessisary to know which form is the preferred form for modification if you are certain that one of them is. Of course in the case of actually editing them knowing
which form is the preferred form is quite helpful. :DIf the truetype and opentype versions are generated from the Postscript version a makefile or script to update those should be included. But the licence itself sounds like it meets the DFSG to me. (I'm assuming that the LPPL is free, which I think is a pretty safe assumption).
Of course that licence is only really useful in the case of fonts or other things where binary is more or less the same as source. (XML files, CSS files, and shell scripts are some other examples).