linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] LICENSES: Add the CC-BY-4.0 license

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:11:37 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] LICENSES: Add the CC-BY-4.0 license

Am 24.11.20 um 10:36 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Am 24.11.20 um 10:18 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:00:01AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> For context: Patch 2 of this series adds a text to the Documentation/ directory
>>>> which (for now) uses "GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0", as I want to make it easy and
>>>> attractive for others to base their work on it. I'm not strongly attached to
>>>> CC-BY-4.0, but it seemed like the best choice: it's designed for such usage and
>>>> afaics better than using MIT for text files.
>>> And you've not Cced me on that patch 2 or patch 3, which makes Ccing
>>> me on this pretty useless as I can't judge the context.
>> Argh, sorry, slipped through. You can find it here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2f314e58cb14c1579f843f8c72bdb4bbb83ac20a.1606137108.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
> 
> [...]  How to we make sure people
> don't accidentally end up including things they can't?

A quick question for this part of your mail; I'm getting on thin ice 
with it (hope I won't regret this), but I guess it's worth it to make me 
understand the problem better:

How is having a CC-BY text that tracks in part from GPL2 text or code in 
this case any different than having MIT code that links or includes 
GPLv2 licensed code? Both CC-BY and MIT are compatible to the GPL (see 
[1]) and the processed result is only available under GPL (see [2]).

Ciao, Thorsten

[1]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ccby

[2]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense