[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

Chris Simpkins writes ("Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package"):
> We created a new thread for our license discussions for anyone who is
> interested in participating on the repository:  

Thanks.  I prefer to reply here.  I hope that's OK.

>From Debian's point of view, the licence you provide is adequate for
us to be able to include the fonts in Debian.  However, the reserved
font name restriction would almost certainly mean that we would have
to rename the fonts.

Debian has a long history of dealing with upstreams who restrict the
ability of Debian to distribute a modified version under the usual
name.  For example, for many years, Debian's Firefox package was
called `iceweasel' (and all the Firefox branding was removed), because
the Mozilla Foundation (who own the trademark "Firefox") insisted on
prior approval of all changes.

Debian is not likely to accept a restriction on modifying glyphs.  We
consider that Debian (and its downstreams and users) must be free to
make changes - even changes that upstreams disapprove of.  For fonts,
the need to change glyphs is not theoretical: when I was an Ubuntu
developer I personally modified a font in order to correct an
erroneous glyph in some Georgian character, in response to a bug
report from a user.)

So, if you would like Debian to distribute your fonts under names
which advertise your project as the origin, then you should grant
Debian permission to do so.

I hope this has been a useful perspective.


NB: I am not the person in Debian who makes these decisions.  But I
think the views I have attributed above to the project as a whole will
be very uncontroversial.

Reply to: