From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751382AbdKTPbd (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:31:33 -0500 Received: from www.llwyncelyn.cymru ([82.70.14.225]:57814 "EHLO fuzix.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751312AbdKTPbb (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:31:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:31:05 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Charlemagne Lasse , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Andrew Morton , Jonathan Corbet , Kate Stewart , Philippe Ombredanne , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Christoph Hellwig , Russell King , Rob Herring , Jonas Oberg , Joe Perches , linux-xfs , Carmen Bianca Bakker Subject: Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license Message-ID: <20171120153105.38d2b892@alans-desktop> In-Reply-To: References: <20171116183306.103584007@linutronix.de> <20171116184358.475929943@linutronix.de> Organization: Intel Corporation X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > You may be confusing things because of a newer version. > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse > wrote: > > > > That should be "GNU Lesser General Public" and not "GNU Library General Public" > > That's just FSF revisionism. > > It used to be called "Library" over "Lesser", in the original GPL2. > > I suspect your other issues are similar "there's been different > versions over time" things. the address being one of them. > > We've actually taken some of the FSF updates over the years ("19yy" -> > "", and the address change) but the main COPYING file still > calls the LGPL the "GNU Library General Public License". > > I refuse to change the original copyright wording due to idiotic > internal FSF politics that tried to change history. Do we have any files which had the later LGPL text attached to them - if so then they should be keeping that header. Which raises another question. If there are multiple GPL 2.0 texts which are *supposedly* legally identical but this has never been tested in law -that implies SPDX is wrong in tagging them identically in case they turn out not to be... Alan