Re: [PATCH -v2] ftrace: Documentation

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > The document is not code. The GPL is not appropriate for it. I had this
> > discussion when I wrote the rt-mutex-design.txt file, and the conclussion
> > was that the GFDL was an appropriate license.
>
> The GFDL is never appropriate, and certainly not for the kernel tree.
> We had some files under it in the past and we decided to relicense them
> after talking to the authors.
>

I'm fine with any "free" license. I don't need people asking me to use
this work, as long as they give me credit (keep the copyright). I don't
remember exactly how the thread went, I first put the document under the
GPL, but I someone told me that isn't appropriate for documentation. So I
used this instead. I know the documentation and the code are distributed
together, but the "binary" of Linux does not contain the Documentation
directory as source, so I would think that the GPL is not quite
appropriate for the Documentation directory.

I'll need to ask a lawyer about this, but how about a "dual" license?
The GFDL and what ever you feel is appropriate?

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/