On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 06:12:47PM +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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Other way would be to remove SPDX-FileCopyrightText from existing files
> and disallow this, but one way or another we should be explicit about
> it. Otherwise people will be sending more of these and each maintainer
> would need to make their own call.
> ---
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst | 2 ++
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 9 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
> b/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
> index 59a7832df7d0..8d7c0214f283 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
> @@ -66,6 +66,8 @@ License identifier syntax
> '#!PATH_TO_INTERPRETER' in the first line. For those scripts the SPDX
> identifier goes into the second line.
As you are adding a copyright identifier, this sentence should probably
be:
For those scripts, the SPDX license identifier goes into the
second line.
> + Identifier line can be followed by another one with
> SPDX-FileCopyrightText.
How about:
"The license identifier line can then be followed by a
SPDX-FileCopyrightText line if desired."
> +
> |
>
> 2. Style:
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 362a8d1cd327..98261ee97e2b 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -3844,6 +3844,15 @@ sub process {
> "Misplaced SPDX-License-Identifier tag - use line
> $checklicenseline instead\n" . $herecurr);
> }
>
> +# check for unused SPDX file tags
# check for unsupported SPDX file tags
thanks,
greg k-h
