GFDL in the kernel tree
2.5.71 introduces two GFDL-licensed files in the kernel tree, there's a few problems with this, because:
(1) COPYING in the toplevel says the kernel tree is GPLv2, GFDL is GPL incompatible.
(2) Documentation/DocBook/gadget.tmpl, one of the files, includes extracted from source files licensed under GPL, making this a GPL license violation.
(3) Documentation/kobject.txt, the other files claims it's under GFDL but doesn't actually include the license text as mandated by the GFDL.
And of course there's still all those nasty issue with GFDL like invariant sections and cover texts that make at least the debian-devel list believe it's an unfree license..
Folks, could we please only use GPL-compatible licenses in the kernel tree?
Quoted 1 line · Christoph Hellwig
2.5.71 introduces two GFDL-licensed files in the kernel tree...
A "grep" in Documentation/DocBook shows me three GFDL files, last time I grepped there were none. So I was aware that adding one would likely raise some issues ... evidently a variety of people have noticed that GPL for docs/specs isn't the best solution.
Quoted 3 lines
(2)
Documentation/DocBook/gadget.tmpl, one of the files, includes extracted from source files licensed under GPL, making this a GPL license violation.
Almost all of that is covered by a "GFDL Exception"; see the top of <linux/usb_gadget.h>. I can submit a patch to do the same for one other file (usbstring.c, one function).
But there's a potential issue for kerneldoc for one particular structure, "usb_ctrlrequest", which was merged into 2.5 from a patch on 2/2/2002 ... I think I know who contributed that patch. If that author isn't willing to let that text be covered by GFDL, and for some reason I can't replace it with similar text that is (mostly pointing to the USB spec for details), I'll pull that bit out. In short: This particular issue is fixable.
Quoted 3 lines
And of course there's still all those nasty issue with GFDL like invariant sections and cover texts that make at least the debian-devel list believe it's an unfree license..
Only when those sections are used. Which none of those three files do; all that doc is Free (GPL-compatible) by Debian terms. (Modulo minor issues to be worked.)
- Dave
Quoted 8 lines · David Brownell
Quoted 1 line · Christoph Hellwig
2.5.71 introduces two GFDL-licensed files in the kernel tree...
A "grep" in
Documentation/DocBookshows me three GFDL files, last time I grepped there were none. So I was aware that adding one would likely raise some issues ... evidently a variety of people have noticed that GPL for docs/specs isn't the best solution.
My preferred license for documentation is 2clause BSD because some of the GPL legalese is strange for docs at least..
But GFDL really is a horrible license.
Quoted 7 lines
But there's a potential issue for kerneldoc for one particular structure, "
usb_ctrlrequest", which was merged into 2.5 from a patch on 2/2/2002 ... I think I know who contributed that patch. If that author isn't willing to let that text be covered by GFDL, and for some reason I can't replace it with similar text that is (mostly pointing to the USB spec for details), I'll pull that bit out. In short: This particular issue is fixable.
Well, it is fixable but it's the best example of why am incompatible documentation license is evil.
Quoted 3 lines
Only when those sections are used. Which none of those three files do; all that doc is Free (GPL-compatible) by Debian terms. (Modulo minor issues to be worked.)
debian-legacl had more issue, may they be minor or not. The biggest problem with the GFDL in the free software context is it's GPL incompatiblity.
Quoted 3 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Folks, could we please only use GPL-compatible licenses in the kernel tree?
I'd agree. The GFDL is a disaster anyway. You can't even fix bugs in the documentation without having to change the title etc. There are much better licenses around.
I'd say we just remove the files.
Linus
Quoted 11 lines · Linus Torvalds
Quoted 3 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Folks, could we please only use GPL-compatible licenses in the kernel tree?
I'd agree. The GFDL is a disaster anyway. You can't even fix bugs in the documentation without having to change the title etc. There are much better licenses around.
I'd say we just remove the files.
Okay, I'll wait a day or two for the copyright holders to comment and maybe change the license and then submit a patch.
Quoted 11 lines
(3)
Documentation/kobject.txt, the other files claims it's under GFDL but doesn't actually include the license text as mandated by the GFDL.And of course there's still all those nasty issue with GFDL like invariant sections and cover texts that make at least the debian-devel list believe it's an unfree license..
Folks, could we please only use GPL-compatible licenses in the kernel tree?
No problem, I'll remove it from kobject.txt.
-pat
Quoted 9 lines · Patrick Mochel
Quoted 9 lines
(3)
Documentation/kobject.txt, the other files claims it's under GFDL but doesn't actually include the license text as mandated by the GFDL.And of course there's still all those nasty issue with GFDL like invariant sections and cover texts that make at least the debian-devel list believe it's an unfree license..
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Folks, could we please only use GPL-compatible licenses in the kernel tree?
No problem, I'll remove it from kobject.txt.
-pat
Can someone explain what a "GPL-compatible" license is? Not to open old sores, but I should be able to provide a license that states;
"Anybody can use this text for any purpose whatsoever as long
as they keep my name within."
However, It has been recently stated that this is not "GPL compatible", that you must refer to the exact version of the "GPL" license to have something "GPL" compatible. This will prevent a lot of good software from being included within the kernel, in addition to Linus's software if taken seriously.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.