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.
