On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 6:00 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Thanks for the review. Comments are inline below. > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:49 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Where did the "or later" come from? I don't see that in the original > > > text. > > > > Yea, this part seems a little bit ambiguous: > > > > > > - * ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be distributed under the terms of > > > > - * the GNU General Public License, in which case the provisions of the GPL are > > > > - * required INSTEAD OF the above restrictions. (This clause is > > > > - * necessary due to a potential bad interaction between the GPL and > > > > - * the restrictions contained in a BSD-style copyright.) > > > > > > I do not see a "or later" here. > > > > I don't see a "2.0" either. I think we can infer from context that it > > couldn't have been < 2.0. So in the absence of a number, maybe this > > means >= 2.0, and hence "or later"? Or since at the time it probably > > meant 2.0, do we infer this to mean == 2.0? I really have no idea, > > which is why I'm glad this list exists. > > > > It sounds like your perspective is that this is == 2.0? > > Without a "or later" it has to be "2.0" as that is what the overall > kernel license is. That's what we did for the big SPDX sweep, so that > keeps things being decided in the same manner. Sounds good. v3 incoming. Jason
