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