On 5/22/19 2:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:05:37PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: >> >> 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? Jilayne's question wasn't about current usage in the kernel, it was about what we should do in this cleanup process when we get to files where the license notice doesn't have an explicit GPL version number or include the "or later" text. Thomas hasn't gotten to those patterns yet in his batch processing. Allison
