GFDL in the kernel tree

GFDL in the kernel tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

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?

Re: GFDL in the kernel tree

[David Brownell]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.


> (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.


> 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

Re: GFDL in the kernel tree

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> 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

Re: GFDL in the kernel tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 09:05:26AM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Re: GFDL in the kernel tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 09:48:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 
> > 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.

Re: GFDL in the kernel tree

[Patrick Mochel]

> (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

Re: GFDL in the kernel tree

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Patrick Mochel wrote:

>
> > (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
>

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.

Re: GFDL in the kernel tree

[viro]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 02:45:55PM -0400, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> IMBMSB is the GFDL the 'Gnu Free Documentation License'?
> Has Gnu produced a doc license that is incompatible with GPL?
> Looks like it...but I can understand the purpose behind the
> GFDL.
> 
> Seems like GNU needs a simple doc license a la BSD doc license
> to fill the gap between a formally published doc 'GFDL' and the
> sort of stuff in the kernel tree 'BSDish'.

List name is linux-kernel.  Linux is not GNU, so kindly take that
to appropriate place (gnu.misc.discuss, alt.tasteless, whatever).

RE: GFDL in the kernel tree

[Downing, Thomas]

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:root@chaos.analogic.com]
> 
> Can someone explain what a "GPL-compatible" license is?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

IMBMSB is the GFDL the 'Gnu Free Documentation License'?
Has Gnu produced a doc license that is incompatible with GPL?
Looks like it...but I can understand the purpose behind the
GFDL.

Seems like GNU needs a simple doc license a la BSD doc license
to fill the gap between a formally published doc 'GFDL' and the
sort of stuff in the kernel tree 'BSDish'.