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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 573E8FA372C for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 18:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A23421924 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 18:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="W/G3A6IT" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2A23421924 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iT9Pp-0000ql-NL; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:55:25 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iT9Po-0000qd-Vr for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:55:25 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 521c84fc-0259-11ea-b678-bc764e2007e4 Received: from mail.kernel.org (unknown [198.145.29.99]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 521c84fc-0259-11ea-b678-bc764e2007e4; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:55:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (c-67-164-102-47.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.164.102.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D76021D7E; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 18:55:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1573239323; bh=v8SOJH1R/2XICFakLo0R2Rc+s6+sxIjnt/RPzj5XNoo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=W/G3A6ITBfga176A9Hl9ms678pVJzNF3ydS+3EC8RIRSRpSaBbAa1EUTiqWEQKumo HQ2Or3aE6GzYeBmjPBQeV9AubYlxCKBMvQSszPAsTt7gXBRgM0bCKRZBNzvINVacdc ApQWafm6RiEDhLyiz17J/krc9K0/RRCstxru43BI= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:55:16 -0800 (PST) From: Stefano Stabellini X-X-Sender: sstabellini@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s To: Lars Kurth In-Reply-To: <55138017-FA03-49E3-835E-812DB07A5282@citrix.com> Message-ID: References: <96F5CF4C-B1F6-4523-9130-89E001DC5FD4@citrix.com> <43bea02c7b45f360049791ae4c63e062fc40e514.camel@epam.com> <55138017-FA03-49E3-835E-812DB07A5282@citrix.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-1226971039-1573239323=:2677" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Documentation formats, licenses and file system structure X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Artem Mygaiev , "sstabellini@kernel.org" , "lars.kurth.xen@gmail.com" , Andrew Cooper , "persaur@gmail.com" , "committers@xenproject.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-1226971039-1573239323=:2677 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Lars Kurth wrote: > Hi all, > > I have received informal advice > > On 21/10/2019, 06:54, "Artem Mygaiev" wrote: > > > Before we ask Xen FuSA contributors to invest in documentation to > > be presented as legally-valid evidence for certification, we should > > ask a certified lawyer for their formal opinion on the validity of: > > > > (a) applying a source code license (BSD) to documentation > > > > There are also BSD documentation license variants which may be worth > > looking at > > There is no LEGAL issue with using a source code license for documentation > Typically, community issues arise when the license is has a patent clause > which would act as a possible barrier to contributing to the docs (which should be low) > > > (b) moving text bidirectionally between source code (BSD) and > > documentation (any license) > > (c) moving text bidirectionally between source code (BSD) and > > documentation (CC0) > > > > I will raise this at the next SIG meeting > > Fundamentally, you can’t move copyrightable content from any CC-BY-4/CC0 to BSD and vice versa without going through the process of changing a license > > On the community call we discussed Andy's sphinx-docs. Andy made a strong case to keep the docset as CC-BY-4 > It rests on the assumption that user docs will always be different from what's in code and thus there is no need to move anything which is copyrightable between code and the docs > Should that turn out to be wrong, there is still always the possibility of a mixed CC-BY-4 / BSD-2-Clause docset in future > So we are not painting ourselves into a corner > > Regarding safety related docs, we discussed > * CC-BY-4 => this is likely to be problematic as many docs are coupled closely with source > * Dual CC-BY-4 / BSD-2-Clause licensing does not solve this problem > * BSD-2-Clause docs would enable docs that > > Thus, the most sensible approach for safety related docs would be to use a BSD-2-Clause license uniformly in that case I agree with you. But at that point for simplicity, wouldn't it be better to use BSD-2 for all docs? It is difficult to be able to distinguish between "normal docs" and "safety docs" in all cases. For instance, a description of the Xen command line options would be required for safety, but might already exist as docs under CC-BY-4. What's the advantage with having some docs CC-BY-4, when we need to have some other docs BSD-2? (As you know, I don't care about the specific license, I am only trying to make our life easier.) --8323329-1226971039-1573239323=:2677 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KWGVuLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApYZW4tZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMueGVucHJvamVjdC5vcmcKaHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0 cy54ZW5wcm9qZWN0Lm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3hlbi1kZXZlbA== --8323329-1226971039-1573239323=:2677--