Message-ID: <ZUWV88wRf9suUQfH@debian.me>
Date:   Sat, 4 Nov 2023 07:53:07 +0700
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 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. */
...
```
> > > > +Usage-Guide:
> > > > +  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
> > > > +  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.
> > > > +  To use the SIL Open Font License 1.1, put the following SPDX tag/value pair
> > > > +  into a comment according to the placement guidelines in the licensing rules
> > > > +  documentation:
> > > > +    SPDX-License-Identifier: OFL-1.1
> > > 
> > > Where did this Usage-Guide from?
> > 
> > Adapted from LICENSES/dual/CC-BY-4.0.
> 
> Which it shouldn't be :(
> 
> Anyway, this is independent of the issue if we actually should take
> these fonts into the kernel tree, and mandate their use (my opinion is
> no, that's not for us to use, and especially for any action that might
> cause a web browser to look elsewhere outside of our documentation.)
> 
> Also, for documentation, I'm pretty sure that serif fonts is proven to
> be "nicer" overall by many studies.

Any pointer to them? Or do serif fonts more readable and not causing
eye strain?

Thanks.

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

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists