Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 06:29:32 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 8/9] LICENSES: Add CC-BY-SA-4.0 license text
Message-ID: <20180423062932.0cd167cb@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180423082635.GB20868@kroah.com>
References: <20180422220208.772527041@linutronix.de>
        <20180422220833.423253901@linutronix.de>
        <20180423065449.GE4208@kroah.com>
        <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804230936290.6136@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
        <20180423082635.GB20868@kroah.com>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:26:35 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 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