On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:46:36 +1000 "Tobin C. Harding" <me@xxxxxxxx> 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. Thanks, jon
