Comment 3 for bug 655096

 Hi!

 This reads much better and clearer indeed. Thanks for the suggestion.
There is one thing that I'd adjust for emphasis:

* Dave Crossland <email address hidden> [2010-10-10 03:47:45 CEST]:
> 2. Modifications that do alter the typeface design but not in a way that
> make it an overall different typeface family. This applies to designers
> who add glyphs, or make various subtle changes - changing the width of a
> 's' here, changing the shape of the 'bowl' of the 'a' there, and
> changing the length of the ascenders to be different to the height of
> capitals. These examples ought to be allowed to use the original name in
> part while showing in the name that the work was modified.

 Even though you use the term "These examples" after the examples, I
still would add directly after the hyphen a "for example, " entry, to
make it clear right from the start when reading that acceptable changes
aren't limited to those but that they are just examples.

 Appart from that it is a very good suggestion in my opinion and clears
up what I found confusing in the first place. It definitely reduces the
arguable parts fairly well, and I believe that it's not possible to get
rid of them completely.

 Thanks,
Rhonda