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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 10:09:57 -0400
From:   Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation <linux-doc@....kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, James Seo <james@...iv.tech>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>,
        Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@....com>,
        linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] LICENSES: Add SIL Open Font License 1.1

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 8:01 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Add the license text along with appropriate tags for reference and
> tooling. The text is taken from the text as distributed in Google
> Fonts's zip files.
>
> As the license itself may or may note be compatible with GPLv2,
> let's take on the err side and require combining it with
> GPL-compatible licenses when using the license.

I don't really  understand this, though maybe it doesn't practically matter -
"It's best to use it together
+  with a GPL2 compatible license using "OR", as OFL-1.1 texts processed by
+  the kernel's build system might combine it with content taken from more
+  restrictive licenses."

I didn't check if this text is just copied from that in other license files.

I'm not sure how this would actually come up in practice for OFL-1.1.
I assume that typically the way OFL-1.1 can cover stuff in the kernel
is through font files, and that therefore it would be unlikely for a
source file to include any code covered by OFL-1.1. Indeed, as you
say:

> +  Do NOT use this license for code, but it's acceptable for fonts (where the
> +  license is specifically written for them). It's best to use it together

Even if that did occur, the use of `OR` is only appropriate if the
stuff covered by OFL-1.1 is actually dual-licensed.

I think it should be beyond dispute that OFL-1.1 is incompatible with
the GPL (over at the Fedora project we don't even classify it as a
FOSS license), not that that is likely to matter for the kernel.

Richard