lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] LICENSES: Add the CC-BY-4.0 license
Date
Am 01.12.20 um 15:43 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:51:37AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

@Jonathan: thx for getting the ball rolling again!

>> We could also, if we saw fit, take the position that anything that has
>> been processed through the docs build is a derived product of the kernel
>> and must be GPL-licensed -

That position is totally fine for me (and in fact I think that's how
things are in that area anyway, but I'm no licensing expect).

>> any dual-licensing would be stripped by that
>> act. That, too, should address this concern, I think.

How to make this explicit? Right now the document I want to submit only
mentions the license in a comment near the top. From a quick test with
'make htmldocs' on f33 with sphinx-build 3.2.1 it seems comments are
stripped during processing, so the license won't be visible in the
processed document anyway. So I guess adding this as comment below the
SPDX tag should be enough:

```

Note: Only the contents of this rst file as found in the Linux kernel
sources are available under CC-BY-4.0, as processed versions might
contain content taken from files that use a more restrictive license.

```


Or should we add something like this to a top-level documentation file
to make it explicit for all of the documentation:

```
The processed Linux kernel documentation can be distributed under GPL
v2.0; some of the files used to build the documentation are available
under other licenses, check the Documentation/ directory in the Linux
sources for details.
```

>> In general I'd rather see fewer licenses in Documentation/ than more.

Fully agreed, but I checked the existing licenses first and none of them
afaics came even close to what I'd prefer to see (maybe MIT does, but
I'm not really sure).

>> But
>> Thorsten has put a lot of effort into this work; if he wants to
>> dual-license it in this way, my inclination is to accommodate him.

Thx for your support.

>> But
>> that requires getting CC-BY-4.0 accepted into the LICENSES directory.
>> (That said, I believe it should go into LICENSES/dual/ rather than
>> preferred/).
> I agree with everything said above.

Fine with me also, but I guess I need a little help here. The files that
currently resist in that directory all contain this near the top:

```
Do NOT use. The Apache-2.0 is not GPL2 compatible. It may only be used
for dual-licensed files where the other license is GPL2 compatible. If
you end up using this it MUST be used together with a GPL2 compatible
license using "OR".
```

CC-BY-4.0 is GPL2 compatible afaik, so what do I write instead?
Something like this?

```
Do NOT use for code, but it's acceptable for content like artwork or
documentation. When using it for the latter, it's best to use it
together with a GPL2 compatible license using "OR", as processed
CC-BY-4.0 document might include content taken from more restrictive
licenses.
```

Do we need more? Something like this maybe: "That's also why you might
want to point that risk out in a comment near the SPDX tag." Or is that
too much?

Ciao, Thorsten

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-01 21:48    [W:0.070 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site