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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:21:04 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
        collins@...e3.ait.iastate.edu,
        Igor Matheus Andrade Torrente <igormtorrente@...il.com>,
        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

On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 04:18:46PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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.

Sorry about this, I totally missed this issue when moving the code out
of staging.

greg k-h