<!-- Some styling for better description lists --><style type='text/css'>dt { font-weight: bold;float: left;display:inline;margin-right: 1em} dd { display:block; margin-left: 2em}</style>

   ***: ChanServ sets mode: +v mchehab
   mchehab: <u>syoung</u>: could you please test if BPF is working on this build? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31510087
   <br> I'm doing normal builds for F29 and rawhide:
   <br> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31510167
   <br> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31510190
   <br> <u>hverkuil</u>: I think I wait for the next merging cycle for the DMA change... there are still some discussions about the patchset
   <br> probably it is safer to wait for a while before merging it
   pinchartl: <u>mchehab</u>: thanks for the documentation licensing explanation
   <br> <u>mchehab</u>: what's the DMA change ?
   mchehab: just merged v4.20-rc7
   <br> <u>Patchwork</u>: http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/53477/
   pinchartl: ah that one
   mchehab: Christoph Hellwig made some comments after the pull request
   <br> (last email about that was on Fri)
   <br> <u>sailus</u>: Just updated the text at:https://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_How_to_submit_patches#License_on_documentation_files
   <br> as you pointed, the licencing text there were GPL2+, where the text were mentioning just GPL 2
   <br> I corrected the test to be just GPL 2
   <br> (of course, GPL2+ would equally work - but the minimum requirement for uAPI is dual licensed GPL2 or GFDL
   <br> <u>pinchartl</u>: thnks for mentioning about licensing... I forgot to do this change on Friday :-)
   pinchartl: you're welcome :-)
   <br> is the GPL 2.0(+) recommendation for everything other than uAPI a kernel-wide recommendation, or is it specific to media ?
   mchehab: <u>pinchartl</u>: it is kernel-wide
   <br> (not sure if documented or not)
   <br> it is related to include stuff from Kernel headers into documentation
   pinchartl: do you know why GPL is preferred over GFDL ?
   mchehab: they're not compatible
   <br> if you include something from a GPL code into a GFDL, you may have troubles
   pinchartl: what would you include ?
   mchehab: (not sure if defining GFDL without invariant sections would change that)
   <br> .. kernel-doc
   pinchartl: I mean, assuming a new (L)GPL-based project, is GFDL a bad pick for documentation ?
   mchehab: I guess so
   pinchartl: the kernel-doc comments could be licensed under the GFDL though
   mchehab: on a new project, I would likely go throug a CC for documentation (using one that it is GPL compatible)
   pinchartl: (I know they are not, I mean from a theoretical point of view)
   mchehab: anyway, IANAL... better to ask it to someone with legal knowledge if you have doubts
   pinchartl: sure. I was just wondering
   mchehab: I guess I would just dual-license GPL and CC sharealike on newer projects
   <br> <u>sailus</u>: btw, that wrong GPL 2+ cut-and-paste text at wiki were also present on some docs I wrote that I made dual licensed
   <br> just submitted a fix
   <br> @all: I should submit a PR for 4.21 early this week
   <br> Linus is asking for such early submission
   <br> so, if are there anything that still deserves 4.21, please let me know asap
   <br> (I'll likely do it tomorrow)