2025-01-29 16:17:47 -0700 Soren Stoutner:
There is documentation here:
https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/Bugs/rfn-violation
After reading that page, my understanding of OFL+RFN is the following.
Would you agree that it is sound?
First of all, let's start with the assumption that OFL+RFN is a
DFSG-compatible license.
Then the only open question is: can OFL+RFN fonts be distributed in
Debian with their original/reserved font name if they are rebuilt from
scratch (like by most fonts-* packages)?
My understanding is:
IN GENERAL, no: rebuilt fonts must be distributed with a different name
because rebuilding them will cause changes in their font data (at least
timestamps, minor float rounding differences). The OFL website [1]
explicitly states:
5.9 Do font rebuilds require a name change? Do I have to change the
name of the font when my packaging workflow includes a full rebuild
from source?
Yes, all rebuilds which change the font data and the smart code are
Modified Versions and the requirements of the OFL apply. [...]
HOWEVER, if one can ensure that the rebuilt font file will be
bit-for-bit identical to the one distributed by its author, then the
font in the Debian package may continue using the original/reserved name.
IN ADDITION, if the font is dual licensed (for example OFL+RFN + GPLv2),
then the Debian font may keep the original/reserved name as long as
d/copyright specifies that this font is distributed under the other
license (GPLv2 in this example), even if the rebuilt font file differs
from the original one.
[1] https://openfontlicense.org/ofl-reserved-font-names/ question 5.9
Regards,
--
Gioele Barabucci
