On 3 October 2015 at 03:57, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 02.10.2015, 07:27 -0600 schrieb Dave Crossland:
> >> The official name is the rfn name; that's why the maintainer reserved
> >> the name. The distros need to rename or get p
Am Samstag, den 03.10.2015, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Paul Wise:
> According to the Debian copyright information, there is no RFN
> (reserved font name) so I don't think so.
Erm, yes, stupid example. I should have checked the license, sorry.
- Fabian
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally sig
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 02.10.2015, 07:27 -0600 schrieb Dave Crossland:
>> The official name is the rfn name; that's why the maintainer reserved
>> the name. The distros need to rename or get permission. Same as
>> Firefox.
>
> So, I am currently r
Am Freitag, den 02.10.2015, 07:27 -0600 schrieb Dave Crossland:
> The official name is the rfn name; that's why the maintainer reserved
> the name. The distros need to rename or get permission. Same as
> Firefox.
So, I am currently rebuilding the Cantarell fonts from the provided
.sfd sources for
On 2 October 2015 at 07:50, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 07:27 -0600, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> > Sources and binaries are not the same stuff.
>
> They are two different forms of the same stuff.
>
> One form is used by designers/developers to create new versions of the
> stuff.
>
> Th
On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 07:27 -0600, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Sources and binaries are not the same stuff.
They are two different forms of the same stuff.
One form is used by designers/developers to create new versions of the stuff.
The other form is an artefact that (usually) isn't altered and on
On Oct 2, 2015 7:32 AM, "Norbert Preining" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > A format conversion is listed explicitly in the ofl as modification
> > triggering rfn permission / renaming, and converting source to binary
is a
> > kind of format change
>
> Then what about ship
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015, Dave Crossland wrote:
> A format conversion is listed explicitly in the ofl as modification
> triggering rfn permission / renaming, and converting source to binary is a
> kind of format change
Then what about shipping the ttf/otf as distributed?
Why do we Debian people always
On Oct 2, 2015 4:49 AM, "Paul Wise" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:49:33 -0400 Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> > All the source files there not available elsewhere will resurface in
> > github.com/googlefonts/ soon :)
>
> Why there instead of the google fonts repository?
>
> https://github.com/google/
On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 07:07 -0600, Dave Crossland wrote:
> A format conversion is listed explicitly in the ofl as modification
> triggering rfn permission / renaming, and converting source to binary
> is a kind of format change
In addition, various historical things have meant that rebuilding a
A format conversion is listed explicitly in the ofl as modification
triggering rfn permission / renaming, and converting source to binary is a
kind of format change
On Oct 2, 2015 6:02 AM, "Norbert Preining" wrote:
> > What is the relationship between the googlefonts repos and the google
> > font
> What is the relationship between the googlefonts repos and the google
> fonts repo? It seems a bit weird to have two places for the same stuff.
Looking at the repos, the google fonts repo contains the built, ie
ready made files, while the googlefonts repo the sources.
Not that this is an explan
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:49:33 -0400 Dave Crossland wrote:
> All the source files there not available elsewhere will resurface in
> github.com/googlefonts/ soon :)
Why there instead of the google fonts repository?
https://github.com/google/fonts/
What is the relationship between the googlefonts re
Hi
On 1 September 2015 at 04:55, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm maintaining the Play font in Debian, which currently builds the Play
> font from the sfd sources (attached) which was present in the google code
> repository. And I've been trying to figure out a bug[0] where the sfd files
> generate a rather
14 matches
Mail list logo
