Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jonathan Corbet, le mar. 01 juin 2021 12:53:01 -0600, a ecrit: >> I am concerned about one thing, though: the licensing of this document >> is not GPL-compatible, which means we can't build it into the rest of >> the docs. > > ? I see various GFDL-1.1-no-invariants-or-later documentation in > userspace-api/media notably, do they have such build restriction? What > is actually posing problem in the GFDL licence? Those media docs are separate from the rest of the kernel documentation. Other than that, all FDL in Documentation/ was dual-licensed, last time I checked. The problem is that the kernel docs, when built, include a great deal of code and text taken directly from the kernel source. The built docs are thus a derived product of the kernel and the result needs to carry a GPL-compatible license. I've spent some time talking with lawyers about this, and they have confirmed that view of things. This document should not have entered Documentation/ with that license; had I known this was happening at the time, I would have raised a fuss. As a standalone .txt file there is probably no legal problem, but that changes as soon as you bring it into RST TOC tree. >> What are the chances that we can get the authors to agree on a change to >> a GPL-compatible license for this file? > > I don't know about Collins' opinion on this, Cc-ing him with the latest > mail my archives know for him (which dates 2008...) > > The copyright "the Speakup Team" is a more complex thing to look for. Do you have a history of contributors to the file in its previous home? I'm sorry to be obnoxious; I *really* want to see this document converted and in with the rest. But the licensing is something that we need to get right. Thanks, jon
