linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2] ftrace: Documentation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0807172244100.22792@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc:	Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] ftrace: Documentation

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > The document is not code. The GPL is not appropriate for it. I had this
> > discussion when I wrote the rt-mutex-design.txt file, and the conclussion
> > was that the GFDL was an appropriate license.
>
> The GFDL is never appropriate, and certainly not for the kernel tree.
> We had some files under it in the past and we decided to relicense them
> after talking to the authors.
>

I'm fine with any "free" license. I don't need people asking me to use
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?

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/