J Lovejoy wrote: > 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 I agree that one can use GPL-1.0-or-later in this case well (which was discussed down thread), but I also agree with the argument (also downthread) that there is no *requirement* to include GPL-1.0 in the mix. The text of the COPYING file (i.e., GPLv2) is clear on this point, if we have code that does "not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." Jilayne and I did a pretty deep dive on this question of the 'no version number specified' and I think our discussions made us sure that it does *not* mean GPL-2.0-only, because of the text above. I checked with Fontana too and he agrees with this as well. Meta note: I've got a hectic week so I am not available to look at any Thomas' patch sets (and the threads they're generating) until this weekend, but I've set aside time on this Sunday morning for it. Looking forward to it! -- Bradley M. Kuhn Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
