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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

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