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.
