[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180810215412.GM32374@eros>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 07:54:12 +1000
From: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
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, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:57:52AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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.
Righto, thanks Jon. GPLv0 tags going in for v3
Tobin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists