Re: [Batch 17 patch 43/57] treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - rule 494

[Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:36 AM Philippe Ombredanne
<pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas:
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:50 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> 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 <link to GPL version 2 text>". 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".

Richard