Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:46:36 +1000
From:   "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Convert filter.txt to RST
Message-ID: <20180810014636.GJ32374@eros>
References: <20180809052328.27942-1-me@tobin.cc>
 <20180809060734.rtqqu4sexbwzuqmm@ast-mbp>
 <20180809072753.GF32374@eros>
 <80bdc251-9f57-602f-6536-b34651684bb7@iogearbox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <80bdc251-9f57-602f-6536-b34651684bb7@iogearbox.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.