From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1831C433DF for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 20:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD9E21531 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 20:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388522AbgFSUNb (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:13:31 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:55554 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726667AbgFSUNa (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:13:30 -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 5AA3D23B; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 20:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:13:29 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/22] docs: trace: ring-buffer-design.txt: convert to ReST format Message-ID: <20200619141329.3867e57e@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: References: 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 Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:50:23 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: [CC += Steve] > - Just like some media documents, this file is dual licensed > with GPL and GFDL. As right now the GFDL SPDX definition is > bogus (as it doesn't tell anything about invariant parts), > let's not use SPDX here. Let's use, instead, the same test > as we have on media. The dual-licensing really can't be expressed with an SPDX tag? Because... [...] > +.. This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms > +.. of the GPL 2.0 or the GFDL 1.2+ license, at your option. Note that this > +.. dual licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a > +.. whole. > +.. > +.. a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > +.. modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > +.. published by the Free Software Foundation version 2 of > +.. the License. > +.. > +.. This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > +.. but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > +.. MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > +.. GNU General Public License for more details. > +.. > +.. Or, alternatively, > +.. > +.. b) Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this > +.. document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, > +.. Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software > +.. Foundation, with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts > +.. and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is available at > +.. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.html > +.. > +.. TODO: replace it to GPL-2.0 OR GFDL-1.2-or-later WITH no-invariant-sections ...adding all that boilerplate is kind of a bummer. At a minimum I'd want an ack from Steve (who wasn't copied) before applying this, but it would be better to add a bit more SPDX infrastructure to express this if possible. Thanks, jon