[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080720111601.GA11143@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:16:01 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
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, 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.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists