linux-kernel - 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]

Message-ID: <20180810014636.GJ32374@eros>
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:46:36 +1000
From:   "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "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 Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 10:24:54AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 08/09/2018 09:27 AM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:35PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 03:23:24PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Daniel and Alexei, can I please have permission to add GPLv2+ to the BPF
> >>> docs?
> >>
> >> kernel licensing is GPLv2 without +
> > 
> > According to process/license-rules.rst
> > 
> > 	    GPL-2.0+  :  GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
> 
> Not really, please see the first three paragraphs of process/license-rules.rst.
> The COPYING file of the kernel says that it's 'v2' and not 'v2 or later',
> unless otherwise _explicitly_ noted. Given that and given there is no other
> specific note in filter.txt, it would mean it's v2-only due to that rule.

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.

I'll remove the licences identifiers and re-spin.

thanks,
Tobin.