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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 06:57:52 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <>
To:     "Tobin C. Harding" <>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Will Drewry <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Convert filter.txt to RST

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.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists