On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:40:45PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > Hi all, > > We discussed some example of “interpreting” GPL non-standard notices > in terms of when -only or -or-later. I wanted to make sure we all > agree. Here are some examples for illustration and rationale: This all pertains to the kernel, correct? Other projects may have different viewpoints. > 1) where no version is indicated, the license text of GPL (all > versions) tells us what to do, " If the Program does not specify a > version number of this License, you may choose any version ever > published by the Free Software Foundation.” > - thus, use: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0-or-later > > example: > > * May be copied or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License > > 2) where a version is indicated, but no language to the effect of “or > any later version” is included. The license text of GPL (all versions) > arguably speaks to this with, "If the Program specifies a version > number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", > you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of > that version or of any later version published by the Free Software > Foundation.” > Also, the standard header either includes "or (at your option) any later version” or simply removes that to indicate ‘only this version’ > - thus, use: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only Or the older format: GPL-2.0 > examples: > > * This driver is released to the public under the terms of the > * GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE version 2 > * See the file COPYING for details. > > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published by > * the Free Software Foundation. > > 3) where the license notice in the file simply points to the COPYING file or some other license file that contains the full text of GPL-2.0 > This is a tougher call, as there isn’t really any arguably clear call, but my thinking is that we’d use: > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later No, not at all, because the COPYING file is 2.0, why would we assume that any new version would be acceptable? When files have said "see the COPYING file" or text like that, we are marking them: GPL-2.0 > I guess I’d justify that (loosely) because the default license - in > this case, GPL-2.0 - contains the default standard header which has > the “or any later version” language No, there is no such "standard header here". > and no one did anything to remove that or otherwise indicate a > limitation, but at least did provide a version of the license, so I’d > feel comfortable saying it’s GPL-2.0-or-later. Nope, if it does not say "or later" in the text in the file, we will not mark it "or later". That is how we have been operating with these tags for over a year now, we can not change this at this late date, sorry, this has already been decided. > Note: we had long discussions on this kind of example on SPDX and > there were some good arguments made to say it could just be GPL-2.0 - > so I could be swayed here. At the end of the day, we are stuck with > someone who didn’t take the care enough to tell us or use the standard > header. And while we could go back to the copyright holder, that may > not always be feasible. > > examples: > > * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public > * License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this archive > * for more details. > > * See LICENSE.qla2xxx for copyright and licensing details. > (where that file is a copy of GPL-2.0) Again, "GPL-2.0". Pretty simple :) thanks, greg k-h
