From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77854C31E40 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:45:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD1620862 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:45:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1560181559; bh=vK0aMujQ3G9yaIT918SBCMrQzYLg9jtSzkkmFUwkgcY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=lpN/0pqwTw1YmHul734S84dDPgeZxPK8dEOVtExK99ZpDk4oTaSoRJooxNbU+7aAS 8y4cU85liXjctCzm/273iQrcalFVUNBw4wSt2E4CGJGeHtNtLmk8vQ1ev5FBA9hCUe ow4DE4V8m1G0Mua2kE3kI4NUDibvXRScoWuGhDb8= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391252AbfFJPp7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:45:59 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:55998 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390230AbfFJPp6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:45:58 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 238B620859; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:45:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1560181557; bh=vK0aMujQ3G9yaIT918SBCMrQzYLg9jtSzkkmFUwkgcY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=oipnZ1yygI9dF+W8PecSL85akoNEORyJZj1LwEmQc34UJbZ7jhWfVpp1fBLi+N2v4 VlVxvVIkqy0mf4v6Awpabf4Xl1UH01o/jT2jCYk5EKDK9qDLT7ht+1K3xkMhuT3i5K 4lQ6jXe/+RFHF3chY0+Ap37ESbmookc9aRrsqOfc= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:45:55 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Richard Fontana Cc: Philippe Ombredanne , Thomas Gleixner , "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" , linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Batch 17 patch 43/57] treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - rule 494 Message-ID: <20190610154555.GA28774@kroah.com> References: <20190604081044.651381636@linutronix.de> <20190604081206.123876666@linutronix.de> <1199b8ef-01e5-aa72-9673-f38b05434d14@metux.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) Sender: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:30:27AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:36 AM Philippe Ombredanne > wrote: > > > > Hi Thomas: > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:50 PM Thomas Gleixner 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@linutronix.de > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 ". 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". If the URL pointed to a GPLv2, how can you say that "any version of the GPL applies"? At the point in time, it specifically said "this version", and "this version == GPLv2". Also remember Linus, and other kernel developer's public statements (myself included) about the follies of people saying "any later version", and how the kernel itself is only released under v2 of the GPL. So I really do not think that the fact that the link pointed to a v2 license, somehow saying that means that _any_ version of the license applies here at all. thanks, greg k-h