On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:11:09 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That's why I came up with the thought "make the text available under more > > liberal license in addition to the GPLv2 is a good idea here". I considered > > MIT, but from what I see CC-BY 4.0 is a way better choice for documentation > > that is more known to authors. > > > > And I hope others pick up the idea when they write new documentation for the > > kernel, so maybe sooner or later it's not unusual anymore. > > It's really tricky to make this work when, eg, including kernel-doc from > files which are unambiguously licensed under the GPL. As Thorsten points out, there are no such directives in this particular document. I don't really see how any such could come to be introduced; we could add a comment at the top saying that none should be added if that would help. 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 - any dual-licensing would be stripped by that act. That, too, should address this concern, I think. In general I'd rather see fewer licenses in Documentation/ than more. 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. 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/). Thanks, jon
