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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 1A4A8C04AAC for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 23:15:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D084C2171F for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 23:15:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="KPAuiIqY"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=lohutok.net header.i=@lohutok.net header.b="nwnD7Uph" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726575AbfETXP2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 19:15:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:50060 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726357AbfETXP2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 19:15:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4278114FB24; Mon, 20 May 2019 19:15:27 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=subject:to:cc :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=NaHn83HT4UT6 1Un8jXVA1d8eiuI=; b=KPAuiIqYO+noWyFlpPXHqTOa5i3Zm5hJ2Su1sKeyPu7k A/osz1xXy9/AVlCoslhywMQ+3GGXuOJnDKJnLMH39sy3V6x6wPbXTlZXE8CMSjXU ZdAFS0/Kzlo81lwXWjyL705lZhLZFVjU2DozSQmvTvDOFud/zwXvnLtjWlkeRsg= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD7D14FB23; Mon, 20 May 2019 19:15:27 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=lohutok.net; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2018-11.pbsmtp; bh=rnb0CKF6dM93LQdfanbtzhMwW+gx0HG+1ZUvk3amj4s=; b=nwnD7Uph1oitE+r0N+JuO5C81WyK0umcoTJIKM+/GCCvYQJ2c4KXNofLNzpEKWBJ3P6jmWnO72RzpVFlxB3mYCddtwyCe47BVFPpvfKVeywQ3eoxr6WaFbvEqY/nGHrTSXwXPC4uoKlKtsq6Hb8r8Az9jtVojNc2QB9ymKtMl6U= Received: from [10.252.82.1] (unknown [198.134.98.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25CAD14FB22; Mon, 20 May 2019 19:15:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: clarification on -only and -or-later To: J Lovejoy Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org References: <13E71306-C67C-418B-AB71-2C926B3EA58E@jilayne.com> <20190520185232.GB27926@kroah.com> <2ff53c0d-2a85-9911-b7cd-1a83f53a5b0a@lohutok.net> <445491EE-15E7-4A7E-9032-E28DD1772E56@jilayne.com> From: Allison Randal Message-ID: <51b280da-1081-7aaa-72f0-cafbdf2d1b94@lohutok.net> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 16:15:23 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <445491EE-15E7-4A7E-9032-E28DD1772E56@jilayne.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 26E009A2-7B55-11E9-B8C7-E828E74BB12D-44123303!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org On 5/20/19 11:52 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: >> On May 20, 2019, at 4:19 PM, Allison Randal wrot= e: >> >> No one was claiming that an unversioned GPL universally means >> 2.0-or-later, only that it means we have the option to choose versions= . >> And since we have the option to choose, we should choose 2.0-or-later. >=20 > yeah, one can make that viable argument, I guess I=E2=80=99d just prefe= r that we don=E2=80=99t put ourselves in a position to need to explain to= o much. Preferably the SPDX identifier is an obvious expression of what t= he license notice stated or the copyright holders cleaned up any ambiguit= ies. I don't personally have a strong opinion either way. I appreciate the legal consistency of choosing 2.0 where we can (consistent with 2.0 in LICENSES/preferred, and 1.0 in LICENSES/deprecated), and I respect the people who were arguing for dropping 1.0. So, if I had to make the call, I'd probably go with 2.0-or-later. But, I'm fine with whatever is chosen. Allison