Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] LICENSES: Add SIL Open Font License 1.1

[Bagas Sanjaya]

On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 10:52:06AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 07:53:07AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 09:49:54AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 03:11:36PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 03:06:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 07:00:43PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > > > >  LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1 | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 
> > > > > You add this license, but then never actually reference it in the later
> > > > > changes, so it's going to be very confusing as to why it is here.  Any
> > > > > way to add it to the font files themselves so our checker tools can
> > > > > handle this properly?
> > > > 
> > > > There is TTF name string ID called "License". For example, on IBM Plex Sans,
> > > > the string value is:
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This license is available with a FAQ at: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > Checking that string requires scripting fontforge, and since the string value
> > > > may differ (but has the same license) across different fonts, scripting it
> > > > can be non-trivial.
> > > 
> > > And is that in the files you added?  They are binary so it's hard to
> > > determine this :(
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And, it's not going to work as a dual-license, you can't just suddenly
> > > > > dual-license those font files, right?
> > > > 
> > > > I was thinking of putting OFL in LICENSES/exceptions instead due to this
> > > > nature.
> > > 
> > > Yes, it can not be a dual one.
> > 
> > That's right!
> > 
> > What about just saying below in the CSS file that includes the fonts?
> > 
> > ```
> > ...
> > /* Some cool fonts are licensed under OFL 1.1, see
> >  * LICENSES/exceptions/OFL-1.1 for more information. */
> > ...
> > ```
> 
> That's not in SPDX format :)

Yes, without it (CSS files of course should already have SPDX line); but I
highlight importing webfonts above, where due to binary nature of font files,
we have to resort to simple license notice above (pre-SPDX) whenever about
to use them.

> 
> Anyway, I think the meta-comment so far is "do we want to include fonts
> in the kernel source", right?  For that, I would argue "no, let's not
> deal with that mess for now".
> 

So far I'm only concerned about including OFL fonts. In the cover letter,
I also considered non-free, paid fonts (like Söhne), which IMO looks better
than IBM Plex. Of course, if someone submits a version of this series but
with Söhne instead (hey because many other sites do use that font), Greg will
instantly reject it, right?

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature