2026년 1월 29일 (목) PM 12:15, Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > 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?
In principle, that restriction doesn't prevent people from modifying the font, by forking it with a new name. Name changing can be a big deal for widely known fonts and not happy for package maintainers, but I don't think it's a non-DFSG restriction. > Can we clarify our position on this (somewhere) please? It's been considered DFSG free for a long time. https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_SIL_Open_Font_License
