-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2017, 03:24 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney: > Debian recipients should have equal access to make modifications to > the work, build the work from modified source, and install the > result.
All these modifications could be made to the OTF files *just as well*, there is no advantage in using the same font format as upstream does for their development. But I figure we are running in circles now. ;) > The fact of the matter is the Glyphs data files are the preferred > form > of the work to make modifications. Please note that the "preferred form for modification" is a term exclusive to the GPL, it does not necessarily apply to fonts licensed under any other license. Also, I am not sure if this is really exactly what is meant by the "missing sources" paragraph of the REJECTS FAQs. > It would reveal that Debian recipients do not have equal access to > the source, for modifying building, and installing the work. And thus you would file a bug requesting the removal of this package from Debian main? Are you even aware of the vast consequences that this overly strict interpretation of the "missing sources" paragraph may have? - Fabian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEIsF2SKlSa4TfGRyWy+qOlwzNWd8FAlh+g2oACgkQy+qOlwzN Wd/hVA//X+zpFiwIdA2AUgAuQarC/zLV9RI1SHv4z+ASIvWyALzsLstxinD5fCOY M6X6ySeU9ek7O/ZygHg1STgOzcBF42FvEIZscdFF6jMu5eH1zuW+t+8AoEJwMQLK Uf50XrN0/ZR5DHHXKqMwfPZ39OOIJ5A9iYlHZEe8bkSYjbwF/HlIcUL53xddwOq9 bvETmHCeKJYst/QQsmR6sBNtYY2OV0onSoLxVxsbwLmlcKBA5Sg8DpjZBk407MFo NGllJACTuEWXZDDypAdohEsln3/yw61F/B3LbakvobEnh4pT9iNiOlOCT5MuIOiu yAs0tRFo5sH2rgt3HIlzfHqnCkm4U3+Y4+fHCXJTt5X9HnzC/GuExqP83o21fH3/ qRFSnx4hDfh/D89HiL/SRhj3mx5xGbjqvYuIuoRpH67loTw73nyv2qblv37eFXUg uWTzoc3ln+/AQLaeFmzz8vZM2NPWff9PAKD+0QL9tbbRbAJsNpLZJbxXVC1sLP5Q pyjESFt7DinDXPUWUgr1NXiaPJd9+sxcOnOje94B6cZpz3RWKsteTWWjJVmWfrbf T5sVcwPo6ALHKX6MVXplO/prLKzvwivpO+U0wq9qKQe0M3PtJ+a6eZxKjOX/9re3 Qg0zsjagw2V/tYsszATyETAvU9gK21dVAJ8PDPiMduFsXdOV4WE= =s0k/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----