Re: [PATCH -v2] ftrace: Documentation

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:47:18PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> this work, as long as they give me credit (keep the copyright). I don't
> remember exactly how the thread went, I first put the document under the
> GPL, but I someone told me that isn't appropriate for documentation. So I
> used this instead. I know the documentation and the code are distributed
> together, but the "binary" of Linux does not contain the Documentation
> directory as source, so I would think that the GPL is not quite
> appropriate for the Documentation directory.
> 
> I'll need to ask a lawyer about this, but how about a "dual" license?
> The GFDL and what ever you feel is appropriate?

The GPL is what covers the whole kernel tree and thuis also te
Documentation/ directory.  I don't think we've ever denied anyone to do
any kind of dual licensing as as strange as it might be, so a GPLv2/GFDL
dual license  sounds perfectly fine.