860895On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:05 AM Allison Randal <allison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/29/19 2:08 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > > Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> > >>> the code contained herein is licensed under the gnu general public > >>> license you may obtain a copy of the gnu general public license > >>> version 2 at the following locations http www opensource org > >>> licenses gpl license html http www gnu org copyleft gpl html > >>> > [...] > >> > >> I am inclined to disagree with the conclusion here. This seems > >> ambiguous as to the applicable version. At least it ought to merit > >> further discussion. > > > > Me too. > > To make sure I understand, the source of the ambiguity you're > identifying is the external links to: > > - https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html (which lists GPLv2 > and GPLv3), and > > - http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (which is now redirected to GPLv3) > > Yes? That wasn't what I was focused on though it could also be worth considering. Here again for convenience is the license notice text: * The code contained herein is licensed under the GNU General Public * License. You may obtain a copy of the GNU General Public License * Version 2 at the following locations: * * http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html * http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html The first sentence says the code "is licensed under the GNU General Public License." It doesn't specify a version. I could read that as meaning "is licensed under any version of the GPL" (regardless of how we interpret the later-versions clause in GPLv2). The fact that the following sentence apparently tried to point to the GPLv2 license text doesn't negate the possibility that the previous sentence was a grant of license for any version. Those copyright notices said 2013, which was 5 years into 2013. If that means this license notice dates from 2013, by 2013 a reasonable kernel contributor [1] could be expected to know that an un-versioned reference to the GPL could refer at least to both GPLv2 and GPLv3 -- that is, by that time it was common knowledge that there was more than one actively-used GPL in the world. Anyway it seems very different to me from the more typical sort of GPLv2-only notice that alters the standard GNU notice by eliminating the "or later" language, so that the reference to "version 2" is in the same sentence as the license grant language. What's different in this case is that the license grant language is in one sentence, not specifying a version, and the only reference to a version is in a separate sentence that is just pointing to a license text rather than unambiguously stating that the license grant itself is limited to version 2. Richard [1] Yes I just made up a new legal standard. :)
