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

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

[Bagas Sanjaya]

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.

Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
---
 LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1 | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1

diff --git a/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1 b/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000000..00b8db08bd0e54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+Valid-License-Identifier: OFL-1.1
+SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/OFL-1.1
+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
+License-Text:
+
+Copyright © <year> <owner>. with Reserved Font Name <reserved font name>.
+
+This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
+This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at:
+http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
+
+
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1 - 26 February 2007
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+
+PREAMBLE
+The goals of the Open Font License (OFL) are to stimulate worldwide
+development of collaborative font projects, to support the font creation
+efforts of academic and linguistic communities, and to provide a free and
+open framework in which fonts may be shared and improved in partnership
+with others.
+
+The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and
+redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. The
+fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded, 
+redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that any reserved
+names are not used by derivative works. The fonts and derivatives,
+however, cannot be released under any other type of license. The
+requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply
+to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives.
+
+DEFINITIONS
+"Font Software" refers to the set of files released by the Copyright
+Holder(s) under this license and clearly marked as such. This may
+include source files, build scripts and documentation.
+
+"Reserved Font Name" refers to any names specified as such after the
+copyright statement(s).
+
+"Original Version" refers to the collection of Font Software components as
+distributed by the Copyright Holder(s).
+
+"Modified Version" refers to any derivative made by adding to, deleting,
+or substituting -- in part or in whole -- any of the components of the
+Original Version, by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to a
+new environment.
+
+"Author" refers to any designer, engineer, programmer, technical
+writer or other person who contributed to the Font Software.
+
+PERMISSION & CONDITIONS
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
+a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy, merge, embed, modify,
+redistribute, and sell modified and unmodified copies of the Font
+Software, subject to the following conditions:
+
+1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
+in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
+
+2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled,
+redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy
+contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be
+included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or
+in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or
+binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user.
+
+3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
+Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding
+Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the primary font name as
+presented to the users.
+
+4) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) or the Author(s) of the Font
+Software shall not be used to promote, endorse or advertise any
+Modified Version, except to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the
+Copyright Holder(s) and the Author(s) or with their explicit written
+permission.
+
+5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
+must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be
+distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to
+remain under this license does not apply to any document created
+using the Font Software.
+
+TERMINATION
+This license becomes null and void if any of the above conditions are
+not met.
+
+DISCLAIMER
+THE FONT SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
+EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF
+MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT
+OF COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR OTHER RIGHT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
+INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
+DAMAGES, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
+FROM, OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE FONT SOFTWARE OR FROM
+OTHER DEALINGS IN THE FONT SOFTWARE.
-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 07:00:43PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya 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.
> 
> Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> ---
>  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?

And, it's not going to work as a dual-license, you can't just suddenly
dual-license those font files, right?

>  1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> 
> diff --git a/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1 b/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000000..00b8db08bd0e54
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
> +Valid-License-Identifier: OFL-1.1
> +SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/OFL-1.1
> +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?

thanks,

greg k-h

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

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 8:01 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.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

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

[Bagas Sanjaya]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2831 bytes --]

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:
> > 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.
> > 
> > Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  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, 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.

> 
> >  1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> > 
> > diff --git a/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1 b/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000000..00b8db08bd0e54
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> > @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
> > +Valid-License-Identifier: OFL-1.1
> > +SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/OFL-1.1
> > +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.

Thanks.

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Bagas Sanjaya]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2097 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 10:09:57AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 8:01 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.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.

Yes, indeed I adapted it from LICENSES/dual/CC-BY-4.0.

> 
> 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.
> 

Another alternative is to put license notice on CSS code that includes
the font. In this case, in Documentation/sphinx-static/fonts.css, the top
of the file should've been written as:

```
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
/* IBM Plex Sans, IBM Plex Mono, and Newsreader is licensed under the SIL Open
 * Font License, version 1.1. See OFL.txt in the same directory as this file
 * for details. */
<actual stylesheet>
...
```

Is above acceptable?

Thanks.

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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:
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  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 :(

> > 
> > 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.

> > >  1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1 b/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 00000000000000..00b8db08bd0e54
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/LICENSES/dual/OFL-1.1
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
> > > +Valid-License-Identifier: OFL-1.1
> > > +SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/OFL-1.1
> > > +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.

thanks,

greg k-h

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

[Bagas Sanjaya]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3054 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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

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

[Bagas Sanjaya]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2917 bytes --]

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 #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]