On 2026-01-29, Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at the BenchNine font, because some upstream documentation > that I'm packaging uses this font. Unfortunately, it appears that its > license may be non-DFSG due to this: > > No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font > Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the > corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the > primary font name as presented to the users. > https://fonts.google.com/specimen/BenchNine/license > > I understand how this is arguably important for the end-user experience > of fonts as well as what might be called integrity of design principles > which affect potentially affect the author's reputation. That said, it > feels non-DFSGish. What do you think?
It feels explicitly DFSGish due to DFSG #4 "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software." > Can we clarify our position on this (somewhere) please? I think it is already quite clear. /Sune
