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

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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.)

I think the ideal solution would be to replace the shadow copies with a
link to the Linux docs of a specific Linux tag (v5.4), instead of
generic Linux master. I am not sure where to place the links though.