[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023110450-overview-charbroil-5101@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2023 10:52:06 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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, Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] LICENSES: Add SIL Open Font License 1.1
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 :)
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".
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists