On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:53:48AM -0400, Allison Randal wrote: > 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. Ah, ok. But note, we have already marked such files as "GPL-1.0+" in the past, so any change in that behavior would require us go back and change what we did, showing the justification for that. I would stick to the rule of what we have already done in these cases, it's simpler and seems to make sense of a crazy situation. thanks, greg k-h
