On Friday, February 13, 2026 12:57:38 PM Mountain Standard Time Gioele Barabucci wrote: > 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]
Yes, this is why fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 is rebuilt during packaging, but then the rebuilt font is discarded and the upstream binary fonts are shipped. https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-adobe-sourcesans3/-/blob/master/ debian/README.Source?ref_type=heads > 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 I think this is accurate. Out of curiosity, are you aware of any font that is distributed under "OFL+RFN or GPLv2"? -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
