Re: [PATCH] LICENSES: Explicitly allow SPDX-FileCopyrightText

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>]

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