Hang on a second, IMHO the keys issues are: - we have some packages underway that build from the source sfd - we do not yet have a fully free build path for this font that matches the post-processing tweaks done by upstream with restricted tools - it's quite understandable that designers don't want regressions and bugs attached to the name of their upstream font (hence the renaming request), this is a *feature* of the OFL model: keep the fonts free and give designers artistic integrity.
So yes if we really rebuild from source and it's not the same result then a rename is to be considered but before that there are other avenues to explore: it's not like we're been trying to get it packaged for months now, a few more weeks to get this right and please everyone is worth it. BTW, I strongly disagree with choosing an offensive name for a renamed derivative. Bad form. IMHO this is not what this community is about. Given the manpower we currently have in the various font teams I don't think we want to maintain distro-specific build branches for the various fonts which come with more complete sources right now. Let's work with the designers and advocate a more open process to them instead of taking the task on ourselves. We should work on automating regression testing but we don't have enough resources right now. Keep in mind that not all open fonts we are currently shipping provide full and complete sources besides the ttf. We're working towards that and providing a fully free build path but we're not there yet. A sane license is a good first step, the fully free sources and the fully free build path will stem from that (as some designers are now doing) but making them a strict requirement for everyone/everywhere is going to prevent *many designers* from joining our community. Do you realise that we'd have to reject almost all the fonts we currently have in the archive that don't completely build from source in a pbuilder/koji env? I think you'll agree that we don't want to do that. IMHO it's not fair to make it harder on designers who actually made a conscious effort to publish sources (even though it's not totally complete) but we have to encourage them to go further and see how that it can help them and us. I'll write to the Old-standard designer to know more about his post-processing tweaks and see how we can reproduce them in our build-path in the future. So we should make the case for releasing more complete sources to designers but without offending them or requiring that they switch to our fully free toolkit overnight because it's not yet ready. It's not going to happen so fast. We have to work on common formats as the first steps as well as continue improving our open toolkit. We have to be sensitive to the community of type designers and their expectations while not compromising our values. Remember how not so long ago we didn't have any open fonts at all? We're making progress but let's not go too fast and loose people in the process. Sorry about the rant, thanks again for the great work you've been doing around fonts. Much appreciated. Pabs, could you write a mail to me to explain precisely what you find problematic with the renaming requirements? That would be helpful. /me goes back the LGM talks. I'll report back to you guys about the stuff happening here around fonts. -- Nicolas Spalinger http://scripts.sil.org http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/ https://launchpad.net/people/fonts
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
