On 04/17/2015 09:50 AM, John Snow wrote: > > > On 04/17/2015 11:06 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 04/08/2015 04:19 PM, John Snow wrote: >>> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> >>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> docs/bitmaps.md | 311 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 311 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 docs/bitmaps.md >>> >>> diff --git a/docs/bitmaps.md b/docs/bitmaps.md >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..ad8c33b >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/docs/bitmaps.md >>> @@ -0,0 +1,311 @@ >>> +# Dirty Bitmaps and Incremental Backup >>> + >> >> Still might be nice to list explicit copyright/license instead of >> relying on implicit top-level GPLv2+, but I won't insist. >> > > I think I would rather not clutter up the document itself, if that > remains suitable. I don't mind those declarations in source code, but > for a document like this, it seems weird to have it in the preamble. > > I can attach a license to the footer, if that's suitable?
A footer is fine by me (I don't care where it lives in the document, only that it can be found). As this is a markup document, you should also consider whether a copyright should be passed on through to the rendered document, or whether it is fine for just the markup source as a comment that gets stripped during rendering (I would probably include it in the rendered document, but am not strongly opposed if you don't agree). -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
