Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This exact argument can be made to apply to programs. We as > distributors (or our users as users) should be able to make the > determination whether it's appropriate to break compatibility to fix > the bug, or keep compatibility and live with the bug. A license really > has no business forcing technical decisions like that on us or our > users. > > We've allowed a very narrow compromise to require that the name of the > work itself (or its version) change, but that's it; a requirement that > other parts of the work change beyond its name goes beyond DFSG §4.
Well, in a sense every font file (the standard version, the italic, bold, small caps, etc versions) is a work of its own, and the complete distribution is only an aggregate work. For commercial fonts it is common that you buy each separately. Anyway: would, in your opinion, a restriction be acceptable to change either the version or, as long as there's no technical solution yet that includes this version in the API, the font name? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
