Am 24.11.20 um 10:36 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Am 24.11.20 um 10:18 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:00:01AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
For context: Patch 2 of this series adds a text to the Documentation/ directory
which (for now) uses "GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0", as I want to make it easy and
attractive for others to base their work on it. I'm not strongly attached to
CC-BY-4.0, but it seemed like the best choice: it's designed for such usage and
afaics better than using MIT for text files.
And you've not Cced me on that patch 2 or patch 3, which makes Ccing
me on this pretty useless as I can't judge the context.
Argh, sorry, slipped through. You can find it here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2f314e58cb14c1579f843f8c72bdb4bbb83ac20a.1606137108.git.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[...] How to we make sure people
don't accidentally end up including things they can't?
A quick question for this part of your mail; I'm getting on thin ice
with it (hope I won't regret this), but I guess it's worth it to make me
understand the problem better:
How is having a CC-BY text that tracks in part from GPL2 text or code in
this case any different than having MIT code that links or includes
GPLv2 licensed code? Both CC-BY and MIT are compatible to the GPL (see
[1]) and the processed result is only available under GPL (see [2]).
Ciao, Thorsten
[1]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ccby
[2]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
