On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Add the full text of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license to the kernel tree. It was
> copied directly from:
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.html#licenseText
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
As we only have 1 user of this, do we really need it?
Willy, it's your file, Documentation/core-api/idr.rst that is needing
this addition to the LICENSES directory. While I'm all for CC licenses
for Documentation, we don't seem to be very consistent with them.
Should this be the "default" license we choose for documentation for now
on?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Add the full text of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license to the kernel tree. It was
> > copied directly from:
> >
> > https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.html#licenseText
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
>
> As we only have 1 user of this, do we really need it?
>
> Willy, it's your file, Documentation/core-api/idr.rst that is needing
> this addition to the LICENSES directory. While I'm all for CC licenses
> for Documentation, we don't seem to be very consistent with them.
> Should this be the "default" license we choose for documentation for now
> on?
I'm all for it. If we can agree than this should move to preferred/ and not
to other/
Thanks,
tglx
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:37:14AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Add the full text of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license to the kernel tree. It was
> > > copied directly from:
> > >
> > > https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.html#licenseText
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> >
> > As we only have 1 user of this, do we really need it?
> >
> > Willy, it's your file, Documentation/core-api/idr.rst that is needing
> > this addition to the LICENSES directory. While I'm all for CC licenses
> > for Documentation, we don't seem to be very consistent with them.
> > Should this be the "default" license we choose for documentation for now
> > on?
>
> I'm all for it. If we can agree than this should move to preferred/ and not
> to other/
Ok, that sounds good, Jon? I know you have looked into picking a decent
license for documentation, any thoughts here?
thanks,
greg k-h
Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:26:35 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:37:14AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Add the full text of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license to the kernel tree. It was
> > > > copied directly from:
> > > >
> > > > https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.html#licenseText
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > As we only have 1 user of this, do we really need it?
> > >
> > > Willy, it's your file, Documentation/core-api/idr.rst that is needing
> > > this addition to the LICENSES directory. While I'm all for CC licenses
> > > for Documentation, we don't seem to be very consistent with them.
> > > Should this be the "default" license we choose for documentation for now
> > > on?
> >
> > I'm all for it. If we can agree than this should move to preferred/ and not
> > to other/
>
> Ok, that sounds good, Jon? I know you have looked into picking a decent
> license for documentation, any thoughts here?
My 2 cents here: I'm a big fan of using C-BY-SA-4.0 for documentation.
IMO, it fits better than GPL for docs. For a pure .rst file that doesn't
use kernel-doc, that is the best choice on my PoV.
Yet, I'm not sure if we can import something from a GPL (using kernel-docs)
on a CC rst file. Perhaps it needs some exemption to explicitly allow that.
Thanks,
Mauro
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:26:35 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Willy, it's your file, Documentation/core-api/idr.rst that is needing
> > > this addition to the LICENSES directory. While I'm all for CC licenses
> > > for Documentation, we don't seem to be very consistent with them.
> > > Should this be the "default" license we choose for documentation for now
> > > on?
> >
> > I'm all for it. If we can agree than this should move to preferred/ and not
> > to other/
>
> Ok, that sounds good, Jon? I know you have looked into picking a decent
> license for documentation, any thoughts here?
CC-BY-SA is a good license for docs, but it's not GPL-compatible, so I
don't think that anything with that license can incorporate kerneldoc
comments or, conceivably, be integrated into the whole sphinx document
tree (which does use those comments). That leads to my own believe that
the docs really need to be GPL-licensed, even though it's not the ideal
solution.
I suppose it might be worth putting this question to the LF lawyers to
see what they think. It's not as if I really know what I'm talking
about, after all...
jon