> On May 20, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. yes, that’s why I was posting on this list :) should have mentioned above this was me trying to remember the discussion from a session at the FSFE event in Barcelona where we discussed some of the “non-standard” license headers. > >> 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 so, I’m assuming you agree with scenario 1? >> >> 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”. well, the standard license text includes the exhibit on how to apply the license terms, which includes the recommended standard license notice and that does include "or (at your option) any later version.” - sorry, I wasn’t clear on what I meant above. > > 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. This is the one I couldn’t remember how it came out as it can be argued either way, so thanks for clarifying. So, direct reference to a license text file that contains GPL-2.0 will thus be marked as: GPL-2.0-only (or old SPDX identifier, SPDX-2.0) > >> 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. I should have added that I think you can make a viable argument either way. During the discussions with FSF regarding changing the SPDX identifiers for greater clarity, we didn’t get a “default position” of intention from the FSF on what this means. Given the kernel is generally GPL-2.0-only, the position here that reference to the license file is for ’that version only’ makes sense. Just wanted to make sure I remembered and it is all consistent. (I did not meant to imply I wanted to re-open the debate, had enough of that one on the SPDX discussions! ;) >> 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
