On Wed, 22 May 2019, Greg KH wrote: > 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. Yes and no. There is a good reason to remove the GPL1+ crap completely and I already got permission from Redhat to change their GPL/GPL'ed notices to GPL-2.0-or-later. So once we get to that pile we might at least try to talk with the copyright holders and clarify it. Each odd license which gets removed is a win. Thanks, tglx
