linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LICENSES: Explicitly allow SPDX-FileCopyrightText

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2b681eaa-e71b-4c6a-8cea-ba7eb5915220@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 22:28:16 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LICENSES: Explicitly allow SPDX-FileCopyrightText

On 07/01/2026 20:38, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 20:35 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 10:40:11AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>>
>> It's easier to parse automatically and put into other places (like a
>> software bill of materials).
>>
>> I don't like it all that much either, as really, it doesn't mean much
>> (go talk to a lawyer for details), but it's already in our tree so we
>> might as well document it...
> 
> Document it doesn't mean encourage it.


Just like I explained in the changelog --- part, we should either accept
it or mark it as incorrect in the checkpatch. I am fine with both (I
don't have actual preference), but what I do not want is to have it in
limbo/open stage, where everyone has to guess if it is desired/allowed.

Lack of documented policy enforced by checkpatch means every maintainer
upon seeing it will do the same as me - git grep and try to understand
whether this is approved or not. Pretty waste of everyone's time.

Best regards,
Krzysztof