Re: [PATCH v3] docs: process: maintainer-pgp-guide: update kernel.org docs link

[Amitabh <amitabh@amidevlab.com>]

Hi Jon,


> On 5 Feb 2026, at 9:00 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> 
> Amitabh <amitabh@amidevlab.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi Jon,
>> 
>>> On 5 Feb 2026, at 8:19 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Amitabh Srivastava <amitabh@amidevlab.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Update http link to the documentation about how to add a kernel.org UID to
>>>> the maintainer's key. Add missing SPDX-License-Identifier to fix a
>>>> checkpatch warning.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Amitabh Srivastava <amitabh@amidevlab.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst | 4 +++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst
>>>> index b6919bf606c3..1e4d885dc784 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst
>>>> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
>>>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>> +
>>> 
>>> Do you know that was the intended license for this file?  We need to be
>>> careful about putting license declarations on other people's work.
>>> 
>> Yes, The Linux kernel documentation is typically licensed under GPL-2.0.
> 
> I am aware of kernel documentation practices :)  "Typically licensed"
> does not tell you what any individual contributor intended, though.
> *Probably* that tag is OK, but you should really consult with the
> original author of that page to ask what their intent was.

You are absolutely correct. In fact, the original author, Konstantin Ryabitsev,
(in TO here) responded to my v1 patch in the affirmative regarding the changes.
(https://lore.kernel.org/all/177006480695.901069.1641199463436529014@lemur/)

> 
>> Other files in the directory contain the same 'SPDX-License-Identifier' as well.
>> However, I have added this just to satisfy checkpatch.pl requirement, which
>> checks for missing license information in documentation files. Let me know if
>> you think otherwise.
> 
> Checkpatch makes suggestions, not requirements.  All files in the kernel
> should have SPDX lines, but they need to be the correct ones, not just
> somebody's guess.
> 
I went with the common practice, but, can wait for konstantin to endorse this.

> Thanks,
> 
> jon

Regards
Amitabh