Re: [PATCH for-4.18] docs: Delete kconfig docs to fix licensing violation

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 08.11.2023 15:37, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> These 3 Kconfig docs were imported from Linux erroneously.  They are
> GPL-2.0-only in Linux, but have no SPDX tag and were placed in such a way to
> be included by the blanket statement saying that all RST files are CC-BY-4.0.
> 
> We should not be carrying a shadow copy of these docs.  They aren't even wired
> into our Sphinx docs, and anyone wanting to refer to Kconfig docs is going to
> look at the Linux docs anyway.  These, and more docs can be found at:
> 
>   https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/
> 
> which also have corrections vs the snapshot we took.

Imo this reference ...

> Fixes: f80fe2b34f08 ("xen: Update Kconfig to Linux v5.4")
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> CC: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> CC: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
> CC: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
> CC: Henry Wang <Henry.Wang@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  docs/misc/kconfig-language.rst       | 701 ---------------------------
>  docs/misc/kconfig-macro-language.rst | 247 ----------
>  docs/misc/kconfig.rst                | 304 ------------
>  3 files changed, 1252 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 docs/misc/kconfig-language.rst
>  delete mode 100644 docs/misc/kconfig-macro-language.rst
>  delete mode 100644 docs/misc/kconfig.rst

... wants putting into, say, the last of these three files you delete, as
a replacement. I can't spot any other place where we would have such a
reference.

One problem I see with deleting our shadow copy is that by referring to
Linux'es doc, the wrong impression may arise that whatever new features
they invent we also support. Thoughts? (If nothing else, I'd expect this
aspect to be mentioned / justified in the description.)

Jan