On 03.06.19 18:28, Allison Randal wrote:
The pattern of an unversioned GPL with a reference to COPYING was under discussion in item (3) of the thread "clarification on -only and -or-later". We didn't reach a final conclusion on whether the unversioned GPL (GPL-1.0-or-later) or COPYING (GPL-2.0-only) should dominate, so we've been holding these for later review.
Is unversioned GPL (whatever that *really* supposed to mean :o) a valid license here ? (or could it become one for old code ?) In that case, could we just state that in the spdx header and leave it aside, until somebody *really* needs to know it exactly ? --mtx -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@xxxxxxxxx -- +49-151-27565287
