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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:59:30 -0700 From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/26] Make reporting-bugs easier to grasp and yet more detailed & helpful On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:29:51 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> wrote: > > - Dual licensed CC-SA-4.0 is fine with me. CC-BY is OK if you really > > want to do it that way. > > I'm unsure and would appreciate options from others here. > > Here are some of my thoughts about this: > > What do we loose by dual-licensing it under a liberal license like > CC-BY? It afaics makes it a lot more attractive for websites or books > authors to use this text as a base, as they don't need to fear that > "share alike" or the GPL might have consequences on the surroundings. > I'd say that's a good thing for the kernel, as it increases the chances > the texts built upon ours remain close to what we expect on this topic. > > That's why I currently think using CC-BY is a good idea. It's a matter of preferences; I like -SA better as a closer match to the kernel's GPL licensing. But it's your text, so it's your choice. jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists