Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:16:01 -0400 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2] ftrace: Documentation |
| |
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:47:18PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > this work, as long as they give me credit (keep the copyright). I don't > remember exactly how the thread went, I first put the document under the > GPL, but I someone told me that isn't appropriate for documentation. So I > used this instead. I know the documentation and the code are distributed > together, but the "binary" of Linux does not contain the Documentation > directory as source, so I would think that the GPL is not quite > appropriate for the Documentation directory. > > I'll need to ask a lawyer about this, but how about a "dual" license? > The GFDL and what ever you feel is appropriate?
The GPL is what covers the whole kernel tree and thuis also te Documentation/ directory. I don't think we've ever denied anyone to do any kind of dual licensing as as strange as it might be, so a GPLv2/GFDL dual license sounds perfectly fine.
| |