-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I admit it's a bit hard to argue against three, but I'll try anyway. ;)
Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2017, 01:12 +0000 schrieb Scott Kitterman: > DFSG #2 requires that "The program must include source > code". Preferred form of modification is the definition of source > that the FTP team uses. For Debian DFSG purposes it's not > exclusively GPL relevant. Is this the FTP Masters' position on this issue or your personal opinion? > FYI, you are mistaken that C code is always "source". C is sometimes > generated from other forms, via transpilers or lexer generators etc. > It can also be obfuscated C code from the real C source (cf #383465). > [...] > So like C, OTF can be source or not source, depending on the upstream > project. I find this by far the most convincing argument, although I still find it difficult to accept that it should make a difference for Debian as a mere downstream distributor. We provide many packages with fonts in OTF format and while this is acepted as a proper source for some, it is not for others because of upstream design decisions? > It is unfortunate that the gsfonts upstream didn't ask the right > questions before integrating these files into the project. They > really > should have done that. At that point in time we would have to remove > the URW++ fonts from Debian since we would not be in compliance with > the GPL. Well, RMS himself told me that the Type1 format in which the fonts are distributed is considered a proper source format. Apparently he doesn't even care about what tools upstream used to create the fonts as long as they are distributed in a proper source format. > Please try to submit a git commit to Firacode upstream containing > only > changes to the generated files. Then you will see that this phrase > has > meaning in any software context, including in the world of fonts and > Firacode in particular. Agreed, but I don't think that this (i.e. "is it easy or even possible to create a patch that upstream would outright accept in that form?") should be a criterion to decide if a package is suitable for Debian main or not (as long as it is possible to create the patch in the first place, that is). Cheers, Fabian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEIsF2SKlSa4TfGRyWy+qOlwzNWd8FAliDSGYACgkQy+qOlwzN Wd8qwxAAwWmJj0YOLdxQsBhXZh7mzC+LcvY3N04MVHPHNgkIsuAuw3LhU4pHf5xC saninfv7e7GZ29na7i75Ug26v6FS+/3aE7Fej+np1m5pjeVAuvgtzMw4B/lKEeXb UvoTwvLHSKVB1mrGWe4Bu1HU8mDFOn23dZyJmvDoaRxf4OkHcBtPHUkD7FZ35P70 t0GAEAnhAsAKyzFCsdEBGfdH8SGvw+UhHwhC31aGdCWv6to/CHsUd89HTmW2Ky0o QZh/4pkHK7qnX+2Zd6C0WXDdhDVNLFHyYrZT/h8LbFYozLJROksncwIMOKmGhIrK /pYKsqfTKshXO8X0luaQbJHCbldtyv/LbUMVmBGwr24a0+HS5rUPwM5AIhwu6MCk qx4W5vaifunhkxr8Z6CMwBgkKzaK7MZB4BBh+D/C5XbSHcOZHf8HoE65btM8BZyd 8PIEWHZedUAt+HjYkY4RQfdV18XJHkVRiKK2VxCfTWz9bRF/y2+MmXF3/Cd0R09G jrsxW0vsUFp3WaJXTJw3P810deSYvCJpwXAsTvzApHMvTSY9kal+xKVq9moEU34+ dvTtfV9ABf8ETooEd9FRk5R0Q+63aBoK8wU8dkzOP557UPuBeOfXqwBczi2WG4tR 1YzraE5mYf2VonXN8HanePQMC4QpmdZhV/+ds6f5AnbGu56372U= =Qgwt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----