> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:58 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Based on the normalized pattern: > > this program is free software you can redistribute it and/or modify it > > under the terms of version 2 of the gnu general public license as > > published by the free software foundation this program is distributed > > in the hope that it will be useful all express or implied conditions > > representations and warranties including any implied warranty of > > merchantability fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement > > are disclaimed except to the extent that such disclaimers are held to > > be legally invalid see the gnu general public license for more details > > a copy of which can be found in the file copying included with this > > package Richard Fontana replied today: > I forget how we dealt with things like this in the initial large batch some > years ago but I remember raising the concern that some bespoke license > notices contained disclaimer language that was arguably materially > different in some way from what is found in GPLv2 itself. I'm not surprised this is coming up again. This is a critical bug in the linux-spdx approach that Karen and I had raised early on — regarding the GPLv2§1 requirement that one must “keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty”. There are various approaches to resolving this that perhaps we should discuss again? -- bkuhn
