> On May 22, 2019, at 8:00 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > Thanks Allison for helping to clarify and yes, if there is a pattern already, it’d be really helpful for someone to send me a few examples. The examples you’ve seen already may not match some of the “messy files” I’m looking at, but it’d still be helpful. thanks, Jilayne
