Messages in this thread | | | From | Thorsten Leemhuis <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] LICENSES: Add the CC-BY-4.0 license | Date | Tue, 1 Dec 2020 21:45:39 +0100 |
| |
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
| |