On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 09:14:38AM +0000, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > 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 ?) See the archives for details about this if you are curious. > In that case, could we just state that in the spdx header and leave > it aside, until somebody *really* needs to know it exactly ? No.
