On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:51:37AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > 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/). I agree with everything said above.
