From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tobin C. Harding" Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Convert filter.txt to RST Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 07:54:12 +1000 Message-ID: <20180810215412.GM32374@eros> References: <20180809052328.27942-1-me@tobin.cc> <20180809060734.rtqqu4sexbwzuqmm@ast-mbp> <20180809072753.GF32374@eros> <80bdc251-9f57-602f-6536-b34651684bb7@iogearbox.net> <20180810014636.GJ32374@eros> <20180810065752.2ab5473d@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Alexei Starovoitov , "David S. Miller" , Kees Cook , Andy Lutomirski , Will Drewry , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Corbet Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180810065752.2ab5473d@lwn.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:57:52AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:46:36 +1000 > "Tobin C. Harding" wrote: > > > Thanks for clarifying. My understanding is now; this is a case where > > checkpatch is too verbose and we do not actually need to add a specific > > license identifier to the documentation files (new or otherwise). They > > get an implicit GPLv2. > > The objective actually is to have SPDX tags in all files in the kernel. > That includes documentation, even though people, as always, care less > about the docs than they do the code. > > As I understood it, the complaint with the tags you put in wasn't their > existence, it was your putting GPLv2+ rather than straight GPLv2. In the > absence of information to the contrary, you really have to assume the > latter, since that's the overall license for the kernel. Righto, thanks Jon. GPLv0 tags going in for v3 Tobin