[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4702253d918c8edb899a91fbd79b40199a013264.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 10:40:11 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>, Thomas
Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Andy
Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org,
workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LICENSES: Explicitly allow SPDX-FileCopyrightText
On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 18:12 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Sources already have SPDX-FileCopyrightText (~40 instances) and more
> appear on the mailing list, so document that it is allowed. On the
> other hand SPDX defines several other tags like SPDX-FileType, so add
> checkpatch rule to narrow desired tags only to two of them - license and
> copyright. That way no new tags would sneak in to the kernel unnoticed.
I find no value in this tag. I think it should be discouraged.
How is it different or more useful than a typical Copyright or © symbol ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists