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@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. Righto, thanks Jon. GPLv0 tags going in for v3 Tobin
