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
