Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:59:30 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/26] Make reporting-bugs easier to grasp and
 yet more detailed & helpful
Message-ID: <20201120145930.5e59cc1b@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <ada5d01f-47a9-5734-2fc8-3de2d7aa86e4@leemhuis.info>
References: <cover.1605203187.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
        <20201113153313.68ff210c@lwn.net>
        <458eb542-ff4d-e734-67fd-01e8378d4864@leemhuis.info>
        <20201118172958.5b014a44@lwn.net>
        <ada5d01f-47a9-5734-2fc8-3de2d7aa86e4@leemhuis.info>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:29:51 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> wrote:

> >   - Dual licensed CC-SA-4.0 is fine with me.  CC-BY is OK if you really
> >     want to do it that way.    
> 
> I'm unsure and would appreciate options from others here.
> 
> Here are some of my thoughts about this:
> 
> What do we loose by dual-licensing it under a liberal license like 
> CC-BY? It afaics makes it a lot more attractive for websites or books 
> authors to use this text as a base, as they don't need to fear that 
> "share alike" or the GPL might have consequences on the surroundings. 
> I'd say that's a good thing for the kernel, as it increases the chances 
> the texts built upon ours remain close to what we expect on this topic.
> 
> That's why I currently think using CC-BY is a good idea.

It's a matter of preferences; I like -SA better as a closer match to the
kernel's GPL licensing.  But it's your text, so it's your choice.

jon