[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

[Fabian Greffrath]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I admit it's a bit hard to argue against three, but I'll try anyway. ;)

Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2017, 01:12 +0000 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> DFSG #2 requires that "The program must include source
> code".  Preferred form of modification is the definition of source
> that the FTP team uses.  For Debian DFSG purposes it's not
> exclusively GPL relevant.

Is this the FTP Masters' position on this issue or your personal
opinion?

> FYI, you are mistaken that C code is always "source". C is sometimes
> generated from other forms, via transpilers or lexer generators etc.
> It can also be obfuscated C code from the real C source (cf #383465).
> [...]
> So like C, OTF can be source or not source, depending on the upstream
> project.

I find this by far the most convincing argument, although I still find
it difficult to accept that it should make a difference for Debian as a
mere downstream distributor. We provide many packages with fonts in OTF
format and while this is acepted as a proper source for some, it is not
for others because of upstream design decisions?

> It is unfortunate that the gsfonts upstream didn't ask the right
> questions before integrating these files into the project. They
> really
> should have done that. At that point in time we would have to remove
> the URW++ fonts from Debian since we would not be in compliance with
> the GPL.

Well, RMS himself told me that the Type1 format in which the fonts are
distributed is considered a proper source format. Apparently he doesn't
even care about what tools upstream used to create the fonts as long as
they are distributed in a proper source format.

> Please try to submit a git commit to Firacode upstream containing
> only
> changes to the generated files. Then you will see that this phrase
> has
> meaning in any software context, including in the world of fonts and
> Firacode in particular.

Agreed, but I don't think that this (i.e. "is it easy or even possible
to create a patch that upstream would outright accept in that form?")
should be a criterion to decide if a package is suitable for Debian
main or not (as long as it is possible to create the patch in the first
place, that is).

Cheers,

Fabian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Qgwt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----