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
