On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 01:55:23PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > > #4 Where the file contains a license notice that clearly states > > the file is licensed under “GPL” with no indication of version > > number and no other license information whatsoever —> ADD SPDX > > identifier for GPL-2.0-or-later Rationale: This is consistent with > > the text of the license which states, “If the Program does not > > specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version > > ever published by the Free Software Foundation.” Because the Linux > > kernel is well-known to be licensed under GPL-2.0-only and use of > > GPL-1.0 is generally sparse, it within the options given in the > > license text to choose GPL-2.0-or-later in this case. Doing so more > > easily enables use of such files beyond the Linux kernel. > > Please confirm that everyone agrees with this approach, in particular > that we would leave the existing license notice in place and simply > ADD the SPDX Identifier. Sorry, I missed this one. No, I do not agree with this as the kernel has never been "2 or later" for the main license. "2-only" should be what is done here as that reflects the license of the kernel as a whole. Also, I think we caught most of these files already that had this type of marking, so I don't know if it's even an issue anymore, is it? And no one except HURD is going to be trying to use Linux files in other projects :) thanks, greg k-h
