From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51549) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlNDi-0008Ck-2o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:55:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlNDg-0001iY-M7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:55:33 -0400 Message-ID: <55394A93.9020209@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:40:03 -0400 From: John Snow MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1429314609-29776-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> <20150423131945.GC20959@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <553904B4.50309@redhat.com> <55394593.8050707@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <55394593.8050707@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH v6 00/21] block: transactionless incremental backup series List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: famz@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, vsementsov@parallels.com, stefanha@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com On 04/23/2015 03:18 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/23/2015 08:41 AM, John Snow wrote: > >> I know I said "primarily to be difficult" but I was just being >> facetious. I didn't find the GPL2+ to be suitable for documentation, >> strictly, so I went to read up on the documentation licenses that the >> fsf support/recommend. >> >> There's the GNU documentation license, but I found that unsuitable for a >> couple reasons -- one of them was that you are forbidden(!) from >> changing the text of the license, > > Note that it is usually only the license text proper that is locked > down; the rest of the documentation is not under the same restriction > unless you declare specific invariant sections such as a cover page. But > I know that the Debian project has typically frowned upon any use of FDL > with invariant sections, and the FDL has therefore earned a somewhat > questionable reputation outside of FSF projects. > Understood; however the GNU FDL specifies within the license where and how the GNU FDL must be displayed. I didn't like these requirements, and might've used the FDL, but you are prohibited from altering the license, so I chose against this license. It's too restrictive for me. >> and there are some provisions in there >> I didn't like, such as requiring the full text of the license to be >> included with compiled copies of the document. That's not something I >> care about -- a reference in source, for instance, is sufficient, or a >> copy of the license being distributed *with* the compiled source is >> fine, but I have no need for the full license to be copied with the >> compiled version. > > Yes, I like those benefits of the FreeBSD Documentation License. > >> >> The other documentation license the fsf recommends is the FreeBSD one, >> and that one looked appealing, short, and to the point, so it is the one >> I chose. It is essentially the FreeBSD license with words altered to >> clarify what "code" and "source" means with respect to a document. > > In particular, according to the FSF, the FreeBSD Documentation License > _should be_ acceptable for use with a GPLv2 program: > > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#FreeDocumentationLicenses > > although this is probably not the right list to get a definitive answer > from a lawyer familiar with the various copyright licenses and laws. > >> >> Sorry for /actually/ being difficult; but Eric Blake was urging me to >> select a license instead of relying on the implicit GPL, so I did go out >> of my way to choose one I found appropriate. >> >> I stand by my pick. > > I also agree with the pick; I think that GPLv2+ on documentation is a > bit questionable - if someone else implements the same interface using > just the documentation, is their code required to be under the GPL by > virtue of "using" the documentation? Using a more permissive > documentation license feels nicer to me, as it would allow non-GPL > implementations if someone is so inclined. Sorry if encouraging the > issue has made matters more difficult. > It's too late! You've opened Pandora's Box!