On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:36 AM Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Thomas: > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:50 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > > > > > On 04.06.19 11:20, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Thomas Gleixner tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > Based on 1 normalized pattern(s): > > > > > > > > > > copyright this file is distributed under the terms of the gnu > > > > > general public license gpl copies of the gpl can be obtained from > > > > > ftp prep ai mit edu pub gnu gpl each contributing author retains all > > > > > rights to their own work > > > > > > > > That's definitely a bold claim to deduce v2 only. The ftp link does not > > > > exist and the wayback machine does not have it either. > > We usually avoid making any bold claims in scancode license rules ;) > > ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/GPL linked to a GPL-2.0 based on the > wayback machine which is why that scancode-toolkit rule was tagged as > a GPL-2.0. > > You can see the notes I added back then in the license rule data file [1]: > > notes: The GPL version is not specified in this notice BUT at > https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20020809115410/http://prep.ai.mit.edu:80/pub/gnu/GPL > text is a GPL 2.0 license text > > Since then, the web-beta site when offline, and the correct URL should > use FTP and not HTTP so you can check [2] which is exactly a GPL > > I just pushed updated notes with the latest wayback URL [3] > > [1] https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/09d4b009d4377eb1fc6f8439fe564e0a2c28e641/src/licensedcode/data/rules/gpl-2.0_617.yml > [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20020809115410/ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/GPL > [3] https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/commit/4f5d5f3ddddafd9e7eba639f5718a976ca7fdefe This seems a bit similar to another case I commented on a while ago. Despite the fact that the URL pointed to GPLv2, I don't see the GPL-2.0-only conclusion as being justified (beyond the accepted understanding that you can distribute GPL-2.0-or-later code under GPL-2.0-only). The license notice does not express any view about GPL versions. It is not really interesting that it references a copy of the version of the GPL in wide use at the time. In other words, it's like saying: "This code is licensed under the GPL. You can find a copy of the GPL here <link to GPL version 2 text>". Nothing in that set of two sentences necessarily suggests an intention to limit the licensee to the specific version of the GPL that is referenced. It could be read as: "This code is licensed under the GPL, a maintained license that has a past and likely future versions. You can find a copy of one version of the GPL, the version that happens to be most widely used today, here". Richard
