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

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> [...]  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