On January 21, 2017 6:39:17 AM EST, Fabian Greffrath <fab...@debian.org> wrote: >-----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?
That's the FTP Masters' position. Scott K >> 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-----