On 5/20/19 8:26 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > > 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! ;) Nod, what I recall from the session in Barcelona was: - If the notice gives a specific license version number, we only use -or-later in the SPDX identifier if the notice explicitly says "or later". The default is "-only" (or just the version number). - If the notice gives no version number, the standard interpretation is that the user can take that as any version of the GPL, which technically would be 1.0-or-later. But, it would also be fine to take the file as 2.0-or-later, which was generally legally preferred. It was not preferred to use 2.0-only in the case of no version number, because it's very possible that existing users are already using the standard interpretation to take those files as GPLv3, and we don't want to cause them problems. (On the flip side, it's massively unlikely that anyone is using the standard interpretation to take those files as GPLv1, so we can safely drop it.) Allison
