From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B068CC8301C for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 20:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83284206E0 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 20:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730043AbgLAUqn (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:46:43 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48302 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729183AbgLAUqe (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:46:34 -0500 Received: from wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8234::]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDAC0C0613D6; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:45:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip4d149f6e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([77.20.159.110] helo=[192.168.66.101]); authenticated by wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1kkCWq-0002fK-AY; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 21:45:40 +0100 To: Christoph Hellwig , Jonathan Corbet Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Randy Dunlap , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner References: <20201124091852.GB11695@lst.de> <04eae024-811d-d11e-b8bd-52f0dd0e225f@leemhuis.info> <20201124093658.GA13174@lst.de> <20201124121109.GY4327@casper.infradead.org> <20201130075137.3b551bef@lwn.net> <20201201144314.GA14256@lst.de> From: Thorsten Leemhuis Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] LICENSES: Add the CC-BY-4.0 license Message-ID: <8ef49ddf-e64f-d09b-9d31-9f64c89b6efb@leemhuis.info> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 21:45:39 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201201144314.GA14256@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;linux@leemhuis.info;1606855546;f0a041f6; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kkCWq-0002fK-AY Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 01.12.20 um 15:43 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:51:37AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: @Jonathan: thx for getting the ball rolling again! >> We could also, if we saw fit, take the position that anything that has >> been processed through the docs build is a derived product of the kernel >> and must be GPL-licensed - That position is totally fine for me (and in fact I think that's how things are in that area anyway, but I'm no licensing expect). >> any dual-licensing would be stripped by that >> act. That, too, should address this concern, I think. How to make this explicit? Right now the document I want to submit only mentions the license in a comment near the top. From a quick test with 'make htmldocs' on f33 with sphinx-build 3.2.1 it seems comments are stripped during processing, so the license won't be visible in the processed document anyway. So I guess adding this as comment below the SPDX tag should be enough: ``` Note: Only the contents of this rst file as found in the Linux kernel sources are available under CC-BY-4.0, as processed versions might contain content taken from files that use a more restrictive license. ``` Or should we add something like this to a top-level documentation file to make it explicit for all of the documentation: ``` The processed Linux kernel documentation can be distributed under GPL v2.0; some of the files used to build the documentation are available under other licenses, check the Documentation/ directory in the Linux sources for details. ``` >> In general I'd rather see fewer licenses in Documentation/ than more. Fully agreed, but I checked the existing licenses first and none of them afaics came even close to what I'd prefer to see (maybe MIT does, but I'm not really sure). >> But >> Thorsten has put a lot of effort into this work; if he wants to >> dual-license it in this way, my inclination is to accommodate him. Thx for your support. >> But >> that requires getting CC-BY-4.0 accepted into the LICENSES directory. >> (That said, I believe it should go into LICENSES/dual/ rather than >> preferred/). > I agree with everything said above. Fine with me also, but I guess I need a little help here. The files that currently resist in that directory all contain this near the top: ``` Do NOT use. The Apache-2.0 is not GPL2 compatible. It may only be used for dual-licensed files where the other license is GPL2 compatible. If you end up using this it MUST be used together with a GPL2 compatible license using "OR". ``` CC-BY-4.0 is GPL2 compatible afaik, so what do I write instead? Something like this? ``` Do NOT use for code, but it's acceptable for content like artwork or documentation. When using it for the latter, it's best to use it together with a GPL2 compatible license using "OR", as processed CC-BY-4.0 document might include content taken from more restrictive licenses. ``` Do we need more? Something like this maybe: "That's also why you might want to point that risk out in a comment near the SPDX tag." Or is that too much? Ciao, Thorsten