linux-kernel - Re: [patch 8/9] LICENSES: Add CC-BY-SA-4.0 license text

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: <20180423072114.6d1bd99b@vento.lan>
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:21:14 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 8/9] LICENSES: Add CC-BY-SA-4.0 license text

Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:26:35 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> escreveu:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:37:14AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:  
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:  
> > > > Add the full text of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license to the kernel tree.  It was
> > > > copied directly from:
> > > >     
> > > >    https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.html#licenseText
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>  
> > > 
> > > As we only have 1 user of this, do we really need it?
> > > 
> > > Willy, it's your file, Documentation/core-api/idr.rst that is needing
> > > this addition to the LICENSES directory.  While I'm all for CC licenses
> > > for Documentation, we don't seem to be very consistent with them.
> > > Should this be the "default" license we choose for documentation for now
> > > on?  
> > 
> > I'm all for it. If we can agree than this should move to preferred/ and not
> > to other/  
> 
> Ok, that sounds good, Jon?  I know you have looked into picking a decent
> license for documentation, any thoughts here?

My 2 cents here: I'm a big fan of using C-BY-SA-4.0 for documentation.
IMO, it fits better than GPL for docs. For a pure .rst file that doesn't
use kernel-doc, that is the best choice on my PoV.

Yet, I'm not sure if we can import something from a GPL (using kernel-docs)
on a CC rst file. Perhaps it needs some exemption to explicitly allow that.

Thanks,
Mauro