On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:15:17 -0400 Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Would it be fair to say documentation is "GNU GPLv2 unless otherwise > indicated?" And if that's not the case (because I'm not sure GPLv2 is a > sane license for documentation), would it make sense to clearly indicate > the documentation license somewhere in the rendered docs? The documentation is a part of the kernel as a whole, and much of it is generated directly from (and is thus a derived product of) overtly GPLv2-licensed source. So yes, GPLv2 is the license to assume for kernel documentation. I thought I had managed to chase the FDL references out of most of the kernel documentation, since the FDL is not GPL-compatible. The media UAPI manual is a bit special, though. It would make sense to describe the license explicitly, yes. jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
