Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231102120053.30630-1-bagasdotme@gmail.com> <20231102120053.30630-2-bagasdotme@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231102120053.30630-2-bagasdotme@gmail.com>
From:   Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 10:09:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC1cPGyLGEwMBRGhwoGmGBeM8qTbuuUsbeZTiiMNUvk4MT75Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] LICENSES: Add SIL Open Font License 1.1
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation <linux-doc@ger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>, James Seo <james@equiv.tech>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>,
        Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>,
        linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 8:01=E2=80=AFAM 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 togethe=
r

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