Message-ID: <20200623102454.4ca57b61@coco.lan>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:24:54 +0200
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/22] docs: trace: ring-buffer-design.txt: convert to
 ReST format

Em Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:41:14 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> escreveu:

> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:13:29 -0600
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:50:23 +0200
> > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > [CC += Steve]  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >   
> > > - Just like some media documents, this file is dual licensed
> > >   with GPL and GFDL. As right now the GFDL SPDX definition is
> > >   bogus (as it doesn't tell anything about invariant parts),
> > >   let's not use SPDX here. Let's use, instead, the same test
> > >   as we have on media.    
> > 
> > The dual-licensing really can't be expressed with an SPDX tag?  Because...  
> 
> A SPDX dual license should be possible, as it's used for GPL and BSD in
> several locations.

Until one week ago, this was not possible, because SPDX headers
were broken for GFDL:

	https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/686
	https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/970

There are 2 types of GFDL licenses:
	- a Free license where the entire document allows
	  reviewing/changing;
	- a non-free variant, were some parts of the document
	  have a non-free license, where only the author can
	  change (called invariant parts).

Basically, some distro policies don't allow shipping documents
under the non-free version of GFDL.

The SPDX spec (up to version 3.9) doesn't allow differentiating
between them.

-

There's now an upstream patch (at SPDX) to be merged on the upcoming
versin 3.10 that will allow us to finally get rid of those:

	https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/1048/commits/f695d2ac65230d0f4161ba58fff2f9d87bb5a053#diff-b948674e5c5cf6341e44e76b2565e80c

The GFDL-1.2 with no invariant sections is defined as:

	<SPDXLicenseCollection xmlns="http://www.spdx.org/license">
	  <license licenseId="GFDL-1.2-only-no-invariants" isOsiApproved="false"
	  name="GNU Free Documentation License v1.2 only - no invariants">
	    <crossRefs>
	      <crossRef>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.txt</crossRef>
	    </crossRefs>
	    <standardLicenseHeader>
	      Copyright (c) <alt name="copyright" match=".+">YEAR YOUR NAME</alt>.
	      Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
	      document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
	      Version 1.2; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts,
	      and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included
	      in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
	    </standardLicenseHeader>
	    <notes>
	      This license was released November 2002. The identifier 
	      GFDL-1.2-only-no-invariants should only be used when there are 
	      no Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts. 
	      See GFDL-1.2-only and GFDL-1.2-only-invariants for alternatives.
	    </notes>

> 
> > 
> > [...]
> >   
> > > +.. This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
> > > +.. of the GPL 2.0 or the GFDL 1.2+ license, at your option. Note that this  
> 
> And I never said GFDL 1.2+

Ah, right. I'll fix it.

> 
>  Copyright 2009 Red Hat Inc.                                                                                                                                                                  
> -   Author:   Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>                                                                                                                                            
> -  License:   The GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2                                                                                                                                 
> -               (dual licensed under the GPL v2)                                                                                                                                              
> -Reviewers:   Mathieu Desnoyers, Huang Ying, Hidetoshi Seto,
> 
> There is no "+" sign here.
> 
> 
> > > +.. dual licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
> > > +.. whole.
> > > +..
> > > +.. a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > > +..    modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> > > +..    published by the Free Software Foundation version 2 of
> > > +..    the License.
> > > +..
> > > +..    This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > > +..    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > > +..    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> > > +..    GNU General Public License for more details.
> > > +..
> > > +.. Or, alternatively,
> > > +..
> > > +.. b) Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
> > > +..    document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
> > > +..    Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software
> > > +..    Foundation, with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts
> > > +..    and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is available at
> > > +..    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.html
> > > +..
> > > +.. TODO: replace it to GPL-2.0 OR GFDL-1.2-or-later WITH no-invariant-sections    
> 
>   "GPL-2.0 OR GFDL-1.2"

It should actually be:

	"GPL-2.0 OR GFDL-1.2-only-no-invariants"

Thanks,
Mauro

Powered by blists - more mailing lists