Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > linux.debian.legal > #6494

Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG?

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Thursday, January 29, 2026 2:41:19 AM Mountain Standard Time Sune Vuorela 
wrote:
> On 2026-01-29, Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> It feels explicitly DFSGish due to DFSG #4
> "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
> version number from the original software."
> 
> > Can we clarify our position on this (somewhere) please?
> 
> I think it is already quite clear.

There is documentation here:

https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/Bugs/rfn-violation

Specifically, when packaging fonts-adobe-sourcesans3, I followed this option 
to ship in main while complying with the DFSG:

"Build the font from source using tools from Debian main during the package 
build but distribute the upstream build in the binary package instead. In this 
case it is not required to move the font to contrib.”

This is necessary because the fonts created during build, while probably being 
*functionally* equivalent to the ones provided upstream, are generally not 
*bitwise* equivalent.

There is some further discussion of this in README.source, and easy 
instructions for not discarding the fonts after they are built in debian/
install:

https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-adobe-sourcesans3/-/blob/master/
debian/README.Source?ref_type=heads#L1-46

https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-adobe-sourcesans3/-/blob/master/
debian/install?ref_type=heads

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

Back to linux.debian.legal | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2026-01-29 04:20 +0100
  Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2026-01-29 07:00 +0100
  Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> - 2026-01-29 10:50 +0100
    Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Daniel Hakimi <dan.j.hakimi@gmail.com> - 2026-01-29 14:00 +0100
    Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2026-01-30 00:20 +0100
      Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com> - 2026-01-30 19:50 +0100
      Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Gioele Barabucci <gioele@svario.it> - 2026-02-13 21:30 +0100
        Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2026-02-13 21:40 +0100
          Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Gioele Barabucci <gioele@svario.it> - 2026-02-13 22:10 +0100
          Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2026-04-17 00:40 +0200
            Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2026-04-18 06:20 +0200
  Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG? Changwoo Ryu <cwryu@debian.org> - 2026-02-14 19:50 +0100

csiph-web