If you prove me wrong I'll be happy to help you demand proper sources. But I haven't yet seen any need for that.
Em sáb., 10 de ago. de 2024 às 16:37, Felipe Sanches <j...@members.fsf.org> escreveu: > The OpenType spec and its binary format encoding is, afaik, precisely 1 to > 1. There's not much magic (or optimization) left to be done. If you have > the binary you effectively have the sources. > > Em sáb., 10 de ago. de 2024 às 15:39, Pip Cet <pip...@protonmail.com> > escreveu: > >> "Felipe Sanches" <j...@members.fsf.org> writes: >> >> > As far as I can tell, the OpenType binaries have data structures that >> > map 1:1 to their source project files, >> >> I don't believe that is true at all! I'm not quite sure what you mean by >> "source project files", to be honest. This is not about converting Type >> 1 or TrueType to OpenType: it's about whether any of these formats can >> reasonably be considered source code, i.e. the preferred form for >> editing the program. >> >> > so it is trivial to regenerate the sources from the binaries. >> >> Really? How, for example, do I generate the source code for the fpgm or >> prep programs contained in the Droid Sans Mono binary? >> >> I don't think it's trivial at all. It involves decompilation, just like >> any other compiled binary program without its source code available. >> >> > If there's any specific case in which this is not true, I'd be glad to >> learn about. >> >> See the examples. The case of Noto Color Emoji is particularly clear, >> since it is the repository itself that explains how to build the SVGs >> from the "original Ai artwork" (their words, not mine) after, >> presumably, editing said original artwork files. I don't know whether >> those files contain additional valuable information beyond what is >> available in the SVGs, perhaps comments or a modification history, but I >> believe they do. >> >> > Given that, I think the lack of sources in this case is OK, because it >> is trivial to recompute them. >> >> I must insist it is not. But that's not sufficient, anyway: a >> hand-written assembly program may be entirely re-derivable from its >> assembled form, assuming there are no comments or non-standard >> instruction mnemonics, but that doesn't make the binary the source code, >> because no programmer would edit the binary directly rather than >> reassembling it from a text file. >> >> > Let me know if you have additional information. >> >> I'm not sure what information you require. Please let me know. >> >> Pip >> >>
