Hi... On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:22:25PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:10:58AM +1100, Peter Hawkins wrote: > > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it. > > If you can legitimately justify that the preferred form for > modifications is the ttf files, then by all means, distribute them as > source. But I would argue that is not the case. The README [0] states: >
Ok. I'll accept that - I wasn't reading the GPL that closely. > > > In fact, if you pay close attention to the file dates in the upstream > > archive, it appears freefont-ttf-20020306.tar.gz is the newest release > > for the TTF files, and freefont-sfd.tar.gz (dated 2003/02/19) is the > > newest release of the SFD files. Even upstream doesn't seem to release > > SFD files quite as often as TTF files. > > Excuse me? 2003 is sooner than 2002. Sorry, brain is asleep (not much sleep last night). > > > > I recommend that you immediately upload a package containing the > > > source SFD files to satisfy our licensing obligations. You should use > > > both http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-ttf.tar.gz > > > and http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/freefont-sfd.tar.gz to > > > construct the package. > > > > Well, I can do this but I would like an opinion from debian-legal before > > I haemorrhage archive space like this (this would triple the size of the > > source package from 1.2mb to more like 3.9mb). If you really thought > > this was the way to go, I guess I would instead Build-Depend on pfaedit > > and have to automate the generation of the TrueType fonts. > > It really doesn't matter to me how you do it. I don't know if pfaedit > can create ttf files from the command line, though. It can, but I don't totally understand the finer details of how it is done. I email upstream earlier to ask. I'll upload a 'fat' package as suggested soon, and a better package when I get an upstream response. > > > As well, the debian/copyright notice does not actually specify > > > the correct copyright statement. I suggest revising it thus: > > This needs to be fixed anyway. The notice of copyright is important. Ok. =) Peter
