On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 10:09:57AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 8:01 AM 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.

Yes, indeed I adapted it from LICENSES/dual/CC-BY-4.0.

> 
> 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.
> 

Another alternative is to put license notice on CSS code that includes
the font. In this case, in Documentation/sphinx-static/fonts.css, the top
of the file should've been written as:

```
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
/* IBM Plex Sans, IBM Plex Mono, and Newsreader is licensed under the SIL Open
 * Font License, version 1.1. See OFL.txt in the same directory as this file
 * for details. */
<actual stylesheet>
...
```

Is above acceptable?

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara