On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:29:51 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis <li...@leemhuis.info> wrote:
> > - Dual licensed CC-SA-4.0 is fine with me. CC-BY is OK if you really > > want to do it that way. > > I'm unsure and would appreciate options from others here. > > Here are some of my thoughts about this: > > What do we loose by dual-licensing it under a liberal license like > CC-BY? It afaics makes it a lot more attractive for websites or books > authors to use this text as a base, as they don't need to fear that > "share alike" or the GPL might have consequences on the surroundings. > I'd say that's a good thing for the kernel, as it increases the chances > the texts built upon ours remain close to what we expect on this topic. > > That's why I currently think using CC-BY is a good idea. It's a matter of preferences; I like -SA better as a closer match to the kernel's GPL licensing. But it's your text, so it's your choice. jon
