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:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
