On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:05:37PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > > 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 I don't understand. Can you point to any files in the kernel where we have used the "GPL-1.0+" marking incorrectly? thanks, greg k-h
