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

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Fri, 13 Feb 2026 13:37:25 -0700

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<3968552.C4sosBPzcN@soren-desktop>

On Friday, February 13, 2026 12:57:38 PM Mountain Standard Time Gioele 
Barabucci wrote:
> 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]

Yes, this is why fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 is rebuilt during packaging, but then 
the rebuilt font is discarded and the upstream binary fonts are shipped.

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

> 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

I think this is accurate.

Out of curiosity, are you aware of any font that is distributed under "OFL+RFN 
or GPLv2"?

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)