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
