On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 10:24:54AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

On 08/09/2018 09:27 AM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:35PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 03:23:24PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:

quoted

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.