[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:17:20 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch.pl: Add SPDX license tag check
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:12:46 +0100
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > What is the correct/acceptable license for documentation?
> > Creative Commons? AFAIK GPL is for source code.
> >
> > Googling didn't bring the wished-for enlightenment.
>
> It depends on what you want to allow the documentation to be used for.
> It's not a simple answer :(
Honestly, GPL (or more permissive) is the only thing that really makes
sense. Much of the documentation, once processed, includes an awful lot
of stuff directly from the kernel source; there's really no way to say
that it's not a derived product of the kernel. So the output of "make
htmldocs" or "make pdfdocs" really has to be GPL, suggesting that the
input should be GPL-compatible.
GPL isn't the best license for documentation. If we were starting today
I'd try to find a way to use CC-SA instead, but that's not where we're at.
And GPL is workable enough, I think.
At least that's how I see it, not that I really know any more than anybody
else.
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists