HI Bradley, Thanks for weighing in there. I think my original examples got a but lost in the various back and forth. So, let me reproduce and re-match: 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 This is what Allison and I were going back and forth on. Net sum being: I was pointing out that under a literal reading of the license, such a unclear reference to just “GPL” would be GPL-1.0-or-later I think this is where your point is spot on and confirms my memory of the various discussions: > 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. I think what I was looking for here, was confirmation as to whether we want to do the “literal” GPL-1.0-or-later option that the license provides for, or trigger the option to “choose any version” and go with GPL-2.0-or-later for consistency of v2 across the kernel and for other reasons I believe you raised regarding GPL-1.0 Thoughts? thanks, Jilayne > On May 21, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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/
