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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 09D29C31E40 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:49:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF03206C3 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:49:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727972AbfFJQt3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:49:29 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f66.google.com ([209.85.217.66]:40906 "EHLO mail-vs1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727922AbfFJQt3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:49:29 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f66.google.com with SMTP id a186so3918551vsd.7 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:49:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CcV2SzduIxxTkYKFq/DpvZmpSLctI+CnselWTYyG55M=; b=gVBl+pDNS4UlBNQtOTdlfr7T8/Prh6bteXED0V+QYpcjHez03bgO2soSd8bNEIbGCK R9uk9foJIX+MUbwJG7BfhSggI9RkfkltrBn/dz49xGH0wlgz3KiY65HoE3oCeefHWM4e RBOryupPyzfHvosCjVU25NAT2vCKXnWp8o5EGDyH8q0u0WCDTpZrF/RPjWQehYPiqben N5yIg2KzAMacS3j4Ogj/Msb1uRcYyv6Rc8kuy8OIHzj2bRTEqS2P1wOyPjdi89Kh8OKl ePfoFEdNJtazN8LbSURgw9QC52sTKtwfjez38Lbpxbxn0L4WMVjyXRZaK4aljylp/G8c 2Y7A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGeuOVfxl5/UTsYPKJVAYZ8Ai2tTs/K6WW1MqTqI12tZ8GprkW LuPve+GOW9GojvAvD9H/PMPeeZrJR5iBIMYV2TLbfg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw2EMlfOd5CUM3N+gznf8E+Mhc/3VJpLkV+XlVb3mwdGoApoJ8sMZHlogMREmBBmGdMbrauv6F6zOEPWYh6N2w= X-Received: by 2002:a67:ea0d:: with SMTP id g13mr24718946vso.137.1560185367751; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:49:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190604081044.651381636@linutronix.de> <20190604081206.123876666@linutronix.de> <1199b8ef-01e5-aa72-9673-f38b05434d14@metux.net> <20190610154555.GA28774@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20190610154555.GA28774@kroah.com> From: Richard Fontana Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:49:16 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Batch 17 patch 43/57] treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - rule 494 To: Greg KH Cc: Philippe Ombredanne , Thomas Gleixner , "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" , linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 11:46 AM Greg KH wrote: > > 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". The notice in this case doesn't explicitly refer to a version apart from pointing to a copy of GPLv2, which obviously embodies one version. If the notice had said: "copyright this file is distributed under the terms of the version of the gnu general public license gpl obtained from ftp prep ai mit edu pub gnu gpl", for example, there'd be no question it would only be appropriate to treat it as GPL-2.0-only. > 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. Sure, but that's a different justification for treating it as GPL-2.0-only, certainly reasonable but I don't know how much weight to give that given all the explicit "or later" notices in the kernel we've seen. Of course the kernel developers ought to be free to treat arguably-GPL-2.0-or-later code as GPL-2.0-only anyway. > 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. It's not that the link points to a v2 license but rather (for me) it's the absence of anything even hinting at a desire to limit versions to v2 in the license notice, beyond the mere fact that the version of the GPL referenced is GPLv2. Richard