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

2025-01-29 16:17:47 -0700 Soren Stoutner:
> There is documentation here:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/Bugs/rfn-violation
After reading that page, my understanding of OFL+RFN is the following. 
Would you agree that it is sound?

First of all, let's start with the assumption that OFL+RFN is a 
DFSG-compatible license.

Then the only open question is: can OFL+RFN fonts be distributed in 
Debian with their original/reserved font name if they are rebuilt from 
scratch (like by most fonts-* packages)?

My understanding is:

IN GENERAL, no: rebuilt fonts must be distributed with a different name 
because rebuilding them will cause changes in their font data (at least 
timestamps, minor float rounding differences). The OFL website [1] 
explicitly states:

> 5.9 Do font rebuilds require a name change? Do I have to change the
> name of the font when my packaging workflow includes a full rebuild
> from source?
> 
> Yes, all rebuilds which change the font data and the smart code are
> Modified Versions and the requirements of the OFL apply. [...]
HOWEVER, if one can ensure that the rebuilt font file will be 
bit-for-bit identical to the one distributed by its author, then the 
font in the Debian package may continue using the original/reserved name.

IN ADDITION, if the font is dual licensed (for example OFL+RFN + GPLv2), 
then the Debian font may keep the original/reserved name as long as 
d/copyright specifies that this font is distributed under the other 
license (GPLv2 in this example), even if the rebuilt font file differs 
from the original one.

[1] https://openfontlicense.org/ofl-reserved-font-names/ question 5.9

Regards,