From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C56A7D087 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726647AbeJLAzs (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:55:48 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:44280 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726168AbeJLAzs (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:55:48 -0400 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47F2372A; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:27:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:27:35 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Dave Chinner Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/22] xfs-4.20: major documentation surgery Message-ID: <20181011112735.4f696d8a@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20181006005154.GM12041@dastard> References: <153862669110.26427.16504658853992750743.stgit@magnolia> <20181006005154.GM12041@dastard> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 10:51:54 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote: > Can you let us know whether the CC-by-SA 4.0 license is acceptible > or not? That's really the only thing that we need clarified at this > point - if it's OK I'll to pull this into the XFS tree for the 4.20 > merge window. If not, we'll go back to the drawing board.... OK, I've had a long conversation with the LF lawyer, and she said clearly that we really should not be introducing CC-SA material into the kernel source tree. It's a pain; I really do like CC-SA better for documentation, but it's not GPL-compatible, and that creates a problem for the processed docs. Sorry, jon