[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZUgn4r182L57jRgs@debian.me>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 06:40:18 +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 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
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists