linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Convert the Speakup guide to rst

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: <874keh9qk9.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date:   Tue, 01 Jun 2021 16:18:46 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
        collins@...e3.ait.iastate.edu
Cc:     Igor Matheus Andrade Torrente <igormtorrente@...il.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, grandmaster@...klimov.de,
        rdunlap@...radead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Convert the Speakup guide to rst

Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org> writes:

> Jonathan Corbet, le mar. 01 juin 2021 12:53:01 -0600, a ecrit:
>> I am concerned about one thing, though: the licensing of this document
>> is not GPL-compatible, which means we can't build it into the rest of
>> the docs.
>
> ? I see various GFDL-1.1-no-invariants-or-later documentation in
> userspace-api/media notably, do they have such build restriction? What
> is actually posing problem in the GFDL licence?

Those media docs are separate from the rest of the kernel
documentation.  Other than that, all FDL in Documentation/ was
dual-licensed, last time I checked.

The problem is that the kernel docs, when built, include a great deal of
code and text taken directly from the kernel source.  The built docs are
thus a derived product of the kernel and the result needs to carry a
GPL-compatible license.  I've spent some time talking with lawyers about
this, and they have confirmed that view of things.

This document should not have entered Documentation/ with that license;
had I known this was happening at the time, I would have raised a fuss.
As a standalone .txt file there is probably no legal problem, but that
changes as soon as you bring it into RST TOC tree.

>> What are the chances that we can get the authors to agree on a change to
>> a GPL-compatible license for this file?
>
> I don't know about Collins' opinion on this, Cc-ing him with the latest
> mail my archives know for him (which dates 2008...)
>
> The copyright "the Speakup Team" is a more complex thing to look for.

Do you have a history of contributors to the file in its previous home?

I'm sorry to be obnoxious; I *really* want to see this document converted
and in with the rest.  But the licensing is something that we need to
get right.

Thanks,

jon