On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:46:36 +1000
"Tobin C. Harding" [off-list ref] wrote:

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.

The objective actually is to have SPDX tags in all files in the kernel.
That includes documentation, even though people, as always, care less
about the docs than they do the code.

As I understood it, the complaint with the tags you put in wasn't their
existence, it was your putting GPLv2+ rather than straight GPLv2.  In the
absence of information to the contrary, you really have to assume the
latter, since that's the overall license for the kernel.

Thanks,

jon