netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Convert filter.txt to RST

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 06:57:52 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Convert filter.txt to RST

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:46:36 +1000
"Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc> 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.

Thanks,

jon