Quoting Tobias Frost (2025-01-03 15:24:36) > On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:04:11 +0100 Andrej Shadura <andre...@debian.org> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 10:38:13 +0100 Tobias Frost <t...@debian.org> > wrote: > > > FreeCAD is using osifont-lgpl3fe.ttf (and osifont-italic.ttf), it > would be great if I could use > > > the packaged version for both fonts. > > > > All three, osifont.ttf, osifont-gpl2fe.ttf and osifont-lgpl3fe.ttf > ship > > the same content, the only difference is the embedded license text — > is > > this difference important for FreeCAD? > > I guess it is the upstreams intention to have the license in the name, > so I guess that should be honored? > > Beside, upstream documents the names, I'd say the name'd be canonical. > So software using the font can expect something like "osifont-l3fe.ttf", > can't it?
Font management systems generally use the font name, not the file name, to distinguish a font, so providing multiple files with same font name but different file name would only help consumers that bypass font management and directly reference file name. If upstream intent for there to be distinct products (technically identical but) not only legally different but also in embedded metadata declarations different, then it seems to be that the best way forward is for upstream to not only apply different license in metadata but also provide different font name in metadata. My (non-binding, I am not a lawyer) understanding of licensing is, that saying "this font is licensed as FOO" does *not* imply that it is *only* licensed by FOO, and it is therefore not a problem for Debian and its users to use a font file which is declared as licensed under multiple licensed where only one of them is declared in metadata - it is merely slightly confusing. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
