Jilayne, thanks for noting that discussion about (1) and (3) got mixed up downthread. OTOH, the situations are quite similar anyway. To clarify, I was indeed commenting on your original item (3), not (1): Jilayne wrote at the start of the thread: > 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 > his 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 think that solution you propose above is correct on item (3), as discussed in my previous email. Since you asked me in your follow up to also comment on your original item (1), that's below: J Lovejoy wrote: > 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 The situation doesn't differ much from (3). In both cases, a reference is made to "GPL" without specifying a version number. GPL (all versions) say that if it "does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.". This is the very issue that you and I discussed at length when FSF was lobbying for identifier changes, and we sorted out that indeed that, in any situation where a version number isn't specified, the quoted text causes maximal options. So, in both cases (1) and (3), downstream licensors (which the Linux project is in this scenario, since it received the contribution 'from someone') can chose the whole spectrum they want, including GPL-1.0-or-later. I think choosing the "-only" versions -- while permissible as downstream licensor (i.e., you can always opt yourself to narrow an -or-later into an -only) -- unnecessarily limits possibility for code sharing. Linux is clearly committed to keeping file-by-file inventory of licensing information, and given that commitment, the project should strive to keep the most permissive version of the license it can. (This situation is akin to the dual-licensed: "BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later" -- while BSD-3-Clause can easily be dropped, it's not recommended for various reasons.) However, as we discussed in Barcelona, the code sharing argument for GPL-1.0 inclusion is minimal. No one could think of *any* project that still *intentionally* includes GPL-1.0-only and/or GPL-1.0-or-later in its license choices. If we have an example of that, particular of a program written in C, that would be a good counter example and would lean me toward thinking staying with GPL-1.0-or-later in these cases makes sense. Absent any example like that, GPL-2.0-or-later is the way to go for examples (1) and (3). -- Bradley M. Kuhn Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
