| Message ID | 20171116184358.475929943@linutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Add the full text of the GPL 2.0 license to the kernel tree. It was > copied directly from: > > https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText > > Add the required tags for reference and tooling. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2017-11-16 19:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>: > Add the full text of the GPL 2.0 license to the kernel tree. It was > copied directly from: > > https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText > > Add the required tags for reference and tooling. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> NACKed-by: Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com> This is neither the GPL-2.0 from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt (which you should have used) or https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText Please download the correct ASCII version from gnu.org and add your SPDX info in front of it. But I have also added detailed info about non-whitespace changes in your patch. But I am sure that you will tell me again that I am only arguing in circles. > > --- > LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 | 348 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 348 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 LICENSES/GPL-2.0 This patch seems to have been modified by hand because the summary doesn't match the patch. > > --- /dev/null > +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 <cut> > +GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > +Version 2, June 1991 > + > +Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. That should be: "Inc.," and not "Inc." <cut> > + > +Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies > +of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. > + > +Preamble > + > +The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to > +share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is > +intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to > +make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public > +License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to > +any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free > +Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public > +License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. That should be "GNU Lesser General Public" and not "GNU Library General Public" <cut> > +The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. > + > +TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" is missing before "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION" <cut> > +To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to > +attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the > +exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" > +line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. > + > + One line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. This should actually be: <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> > + Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> > + > + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > + under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the > + Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your > + option) any later version. > + > + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but > + WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU > + General Public License for more details. > + > + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along > + with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., > + 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA This is the wrong address. It should actually be 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. <cut> > + Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program > + `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James > + Hacker. > + > + signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 This should actually be: <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989 > + Ty Coon, President of Vice > + > +This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into > +proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may > +consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the > +library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public > +License instead of this License. "Lesser Library General Public" and not "Library General Public License" -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2017-11-18 20:03 GMT+01:00 Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com>: <cut> >> + Ty Coon, President of Vice >> + >> +This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into >> +proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may >> +consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the >> +library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public >> +License instead of this License. > > "Lesser Library General Public" and not "Library General Public License" I meant: "Lesser General Public License" and not "Library General Public License" -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>This is neither the GPL-2.0 from >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt I think it should be the copy from COPYING, in fact, since that's the exact GPL 2.0 license the kernel is under. Library GPL is factually correct; Lesser GPL is a newer name for the same license, but COPYING retains the old name. I don't remember when the FSF moved from Temple place but indeed, the address, which is correct in COPYING, could be updated. Best Jonas Öberg Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
You may be confusing things because of a newer version. On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com> 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" -> "<year>", 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. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2017-11-18 20:14 GMT+01:00 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>: > You may be confusing things because of a newer version. > <cut> > I refuse to change the original copyright wording due to idiotic > internal FSF politics that tried to change history. But you are accepting commit messages which are factually wrong? I am not confusing anything here but state the obvious. Either he copied it from https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText or not. There is no reality where https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText has the same content as the patch which he send. And do you even know the best part: it is also not the version from your COPYING file. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2017-11-18 21:41 GMT+01:00 Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com>: > 2017-11-18 20:14 GMT+01:00 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>: >> You may be confusing things because of a newer version. >> > <cut> >> I refuse to change the original copyright wording due to idiotic >> internal FSF politics that tried to change history. > <cut> > And do you even know the best part: it is also not the version from your > COPYING file. Let us check the non-whitespace differences (the whitespaces are completely different in this patch) between the Linux COPYING file and this patch: <cut> > +Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > +51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA This should have been "St." and not "Street" <cut> > +TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" missing before "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION" <cut> > + One line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. This should have been <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> <cut> > + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along > + with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., > + 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA This should have been: 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA <cut> > + signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 This should have been <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Charlemagne Lasse wrote: > 2017-11-16 19:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>: > > Add the full text of the GPL 2.0 license to the kernel tree. It was > > copied directly from: > > > > https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText > > > > Add the required tags for reference and tooling. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > NACKed-by: Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com> > > This is neither the GPL-2.0 from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > (which you should have used) or > https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText > > Please download the correct ASCII version from gnu.org and add your SPDX > info in front of it. But I have also added detailed info about > non-whitespace changes in your patch. Indeed. I messed that up when I noticed that the license from the SPDX site is indeed different from the COPYING file in a few minor aspects. I started to rumage around to find out why and found the matching one on https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-2.0 which is linked to from the SPDX page. I downloaded that version to check the differences. The opensource page has the original version of the GPLv2 and not the one which got modified by FSF later on without changing the version number. I then decided to copy the text from COPYING, which is the right thing to do as Jonas pointed, got dragged into dealing with a regression and forgot about it. Neither did I update the changelog. Thanks for spotting it! I'll send out a revised version later. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > You may be confusing things because of a newer version. > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse > <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com> 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" -> > "<year>", 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 03:31:05PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800 > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > You may be confusing things because of a newer version. > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse > > <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com> 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" -> > > "<year>", 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... There are also licenses that have been amended (sometimes incorrectly) to convert them from GPL2+ to GPL2 only, and in the process messing up the wording. My understanding is that, even though it's obvious that the wording is wrong, only the author(s) have the authority to correct it for exactly the reason you give. I have some DTS files that are blocked from being merged into the kernel because of the license wording being messed up - but as I'm not the author, I can't do anything about it. People have tried sending me patches to fix the license text, but I can't merge them because... I'm not the author. I've tried to get the author to ack them, but to no success. So, since many of us have contributed code under the exact license given in the top-level "COPYING" file, this is the license text that applies, and not any other text that someone else happens to call "GPL 2". This is exactly why I'm so concerned about the SPDX stuff, and I'm glad that Thomas is trying to address the concerns that I've raised with it by including the corresponding license texts with the kernel, thereby making the kernel independent of the SPDX website. I haven't been able to fully review Thomas' patches, but they're definitely a step in the right direction - provided there's a statement which indicates which is the authoritive reference for the SPDX tags used in code merged into the kernel. Without such a statement, I can see lawyers arguing over that point.
Hi Alan, > 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... For the cases, and the differences we're talking about now, I believe the current approach is fine. In the general case though, the FSFE's REUSE recommendations are that for situations where the license in use differ from the one included in SPDX, you make use of a local reference to the license file instead of the SPDX identifier. This is sometimes the case with the umpteen versions of the BSD licenses. The way we recommend doing this is you define an identifier of the form LicenseRef-<unique_code> (consistent with the SPDX specification). Source code files would be marked up with: SPDX-License-Identifier: LicenseRef-MyBSD4 and the corresponding license file in LICENSES/ with: Valid-License-Identifier: LicenseRef-MyBSD4 License-Text: ... Best,
Alan, Linus, On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800 > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> You may be confusing things because of a newer version. >> >> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse >> <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > That should be "GNU Lesser General Public" and not "GNU Library General Public" >> >> That's just FSF revisionism. Linus: Revisionism it is indeed! Please see the fun and twisted tale of the five official GPL texts below. >> 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" -> >> "<year>", 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: This last comment rings as a red herring to me. There are many minute variations of the GPL around and these are unlikely relevant. No sane judge would consider any of these variations material IMHO and should fine and throw in jail for contempt anyone arguing that this is important. Now, on the fun side, I discovered a while back through fixing a bug in scancode-toolkit that there are FIVE versions of the official GPL 2.0 texts published by the FSF over the years. I am ashamed that I end up doing this research and I would never thought I would need to rummage through this pile.... but that came up while reviewing kernel license scans and a few other scans to support Thomas and Greg licensing clarification efforts. Shocking, isn't it? Let me call these GPL versions the GPL-2.0.0, GPL-2.0.1, GPL-2.0.2, GPL-2.0.3 and GPL-2.0.4 :D (but please this one time only!, let's forget about these afterwards) GPL-2.0.4 v5. The most recent one was published after the GPL 3.0 publication [1] [2]. It refers to the `Franklin Street` address and to the `GNU Lesser General Public License` top and bottom GPL-2.0.3 v4. Slightly after the HTML publication of the new address in v3, the address was changed in the text version [3]: It refers to the `Franklin Street` address and to the `GNU Library General Public License` top and bottom. GPL-2.0.2 v3. The previous one in force before the publication of the GPL 3.0 came about the time of the FSF office move on May 1, 2005 to Franklin Street [4] In this HTML version, it refers to the `Franklin St` address and uses the `GNU Library General Public License` at the top and `GNU Lesser General Public License` at the bottom with a conflicted opinion on which one of the LGPL 2 or 2.1 version to use. GPL-2.0.1 v2. Around December 2003, a variation was published [5]. It also predates the move to Franklin and it refers to the `Temple Place` address and the `GNU Library General Public License` at the top and `GNU Lesser General Public License` at the bottom. Still split on confused about which LGPL version to recommend. GPL-2.0.1 v1. The one true and only original GPL 2.0.... the oldest cached version [6] predates the move and it refers to the `Temple Place` address and the `GNU Library General Public License` throughout. FWIW, I made sure I have all these texts as scancode detection rules so I would get 100% exact hash matches on these oddities. Now you will surely agree with me that the sole sane conclusion of studying this mess is that there must some unhappy ghost that triggered these text changes when the FSF moved from Temple Place to Franklin Street in protest for the move. The only other possible explanation I could fathom would be a bug in their teletype [7]. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt [2] http://web.archive.org/web/20070716031727/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt [3] http://web.archive.org/web/20050511030123/http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt [4] http://web.archive.org/web/20050507090312/http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html [5] http://web.archive.org/web/20031202220858/http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html [6] http://web.archive.org/web/19980119061851/http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote: > Alan, Linus, > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800 >> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> >>> You may be confusing things because of a newer version. >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse >>> <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > That should be "GNU Lesser General Public" and not "GNU Library General Public" >>> >>> That's just FSF revisionism. > > Linus: > > Revisionism it is indeed! Please see the fun and twisted tale of the > five official GPL texts below. > > >>> 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" -> >>> "<year>", 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: > > This last comment rings as a red herring to me. There are many minute > variations of the GPL around and these are unlikely relevant. > No sane judge would consider any of these variations material IMHO and > should fine and throw in jail for contempt anyone arguing that this is > important. > > Now, on the fun side, I discovered a while back through fixing a bug > in scancode-toolkit that there are FIVE versions of the official GPL > 2.0 texts published by the FSF over the years. I am ashamed that I end > up doing this research and I would never thought I would need to > rummage through this pile.... but that came up while reviewing kernel > license scans and a few other scans to support Thomas and Greg > licensing clarification efforts. > > Shocking, isn't it? > > Let me call these GPL versions the GPL-2.0.0, GPL-2.0.1, GPL-2.0.2, > GPL-2.0.3 and GPL-2.0.4 :D > > (but please this one time only!, let's forget about these afterwards) > > GPL-2.0.4 v5. The most recent one was published after the GPL 3.0 > publication [1] [2]. It refers to the `Franklin Street` address and to > the `GNU Lesser General Public License` top and bottom > > GPL-2.0.3 v4. Slightly after the HTML publication of the new address > in v3, the address was changed in the text version [3]: It refers to > the `Franklin Street` address and to the `GNU Library General Public > License` top and bottom. > > GPL-2.0.2 v3. The previous one in force before the publication of the > GPL 3.0 came about the time of the FSF office move on May 1, 2005 to > Franklin Street [4] In this HTML version, it refers to the `Franklin > St` address and uses the `GNU Library General Public License` at the > top and `GNU Lesser General Public License` at the bottom with a > conflicted opinion on which one of the LGPL 2 or 2.1 version to use. > > GPL-2.0.1 v2. Around December 2003, a variation was published [5]. It > also predates the move to Franklin and it refers to the `Temple Place` > address and the `GNU Library General Public License` at the top and > `GNU Lesser General Public License` at the bottom. Still split on > confused about which LGPL version to recommend. > > GPL-2.0.1 v1. The one true and only original GPL 2.0.... the oldest > cached version [6] predates the move and it refers to the `Temple > Place` address and the `GNU Library General Public License` > throughout. > > FWIW, I made sure I have all these texts as scancode detection rules > so I would get 100% exact hash matches on these oddities. > > Now you will surely agree with me that the sole sane conclusion of > studying this mess is that there must some unhappy ghost that > triggered these text changes when the FSF moved from Temple Place to > Franklin Street in protest for the move. The only other possible > explanation I could fathom would be a bug in their teletype [7]. > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > [2] http://web.archive.org/web/20070716031727/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > [3] http://web.archive.org/web/20050511030123/http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt > [4] http://web.archive.org/web/20050507090312/http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html > [5] http://web.archive.org/web/20031202220858/http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html > [6] http://web.archive.org/web/19980119061851/http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html > [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter Now in earnest here is the situation: There is NO trustworthy version of an official GPL 2.0 text: the FSF official texts are all fubar (if only in small and subtle ways). The FSF texts should be authoritative, but then which one? they published more GPL 2.0 versions than most. So we would be hard pressed to blame SPDX or the OSI for having their own minor variant. Then in digging further, I found the ONE true original GPL with a file time stamp on June 2 1991, 01:50 (AM?, PM? unknown time zone?) ! in an old GCC archive. For the posterity and everyone's enjoyment I have built a git history of GPL 2.0 Mark1 to Mark6 See https://github.com/pombredanne/gpl-history/commits/master/COPYING Each commit message has the link to the original archive.org page or archive download. For simplified diffs, the allvers/ dir contains all the versions of the texts. Acks and reviews are welcomed, but not really. I also added a shorter history of the Linux COPYING text. The first version in Linus's git tree is based on the very fine and well tuned GPL 2 Mark4, the first fully Y2K compliant version of the GPL 2, as you can see from the diffs with the former Mark3: that was dangerously stuck in the last century. The current version in is based on a rare GPL 2.0 Mark5.1 aka "Franklin St", that I do not have in my history yet and spells "Franklin St." rather than "Franklin Street." Therefore there is likely another GPL 2.0 version between Mark4 and Mark5 that I have yet to find and may not have been caught by the archive.org spiders. Here help and patches welcomed: this is likely an important missing link. Linus: I am rather sad to see that you never adopted the GPL 2.0 Mark6 ;) aka. the "final frontier" or "graveyard" release that came after the GPL 3 launch and when the GPL 2.0 was made an "old" license: this latest version is the finest ever published and I am sure we are all missing out something worthy! I look forward to the future publication of Mark7 and all the fine GPL 2.0 versions to come that we should all long for.
--- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 @@ -0,0 +1,348 @@ +Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html +Usage-Guide: + To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX + tag/value pairs into a comment according to the placement + guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. + For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use: + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use: + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +License-Text: + +GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE +Version 2, June 1991 + +Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA + +Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies +of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. + +Preamble + +The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to +share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is +intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to +make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public +License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to +any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free +Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public +License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. + +When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our +General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom +to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you +wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you +can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that +you know you can do these things. + +To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to +deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These +restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you +distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. + +For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or +for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You +must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you +must show them these terms so they know their rights. + +We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) +offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute +and/or modify the software. + +Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that +everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If +the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its +recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any +problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' +reputations. + +Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We +wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will +individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program +proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be +licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. + +The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. + +TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION + +0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a + notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under + the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers + to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means + either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is + to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either + verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another + language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in + the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you". + + Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not + covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running + the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is + covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program + (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that + is true depends on what the Program does. + +1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code + as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and + appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and + disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this + License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients + of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. + + You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and + you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. + +2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, + thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such + modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you + also meet all of these conditions: + + a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating + that you changed the files and the date of any change. + + b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in + whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part + thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties + under the terms of this License. + + c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when + run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive + use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement + including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is + no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that + users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and + telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if + the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such + an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to + print an announcement.) + + These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If + identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and + can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in + themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those + sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you + distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on + the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this + License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire + whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. + + Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest + your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to + exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or + collective works based on the Program. + + In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program + with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a + storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the + scope of this License. + +3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under + Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 + and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: + + a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source + code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 + above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, + + b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, + to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of + physically performing source distribution, a complete + machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be + distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium + customarily used for software interchange; or, + + c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to + distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed + only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the + program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in + accord with Subsection b above.) + + The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for + making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source + code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any + associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to + control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as + a special exception, the source code distributed need not include + anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary + form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the + operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component + itself accompanies the executable. + + If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering + access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent + access to copy the source code from the same place counts as + distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not + compelled to copy the source along with the object code. + +4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except + as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, + modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will + automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties + who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will + not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in + full compliance. + +5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed + it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute + the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law + if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or + distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you + indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and + conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works + based on it. + +6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the + Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the + original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to + these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions + on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not + responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. + +7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent + infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), + conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or + otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not + excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute + so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and + any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not + distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would + not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who + receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you + could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from + distribution of the Program. + + If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under + any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to + apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other + circumstances. + + It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any + patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any + such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the + integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented + by public license practices. Many people have made generous + contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that + system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to + the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute + software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that + choice. + + This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be + a consequence of the rest of this License. + +8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain + countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original + copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an + explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, + so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus + excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if + written in the body of this License. + +9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of + the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be + similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to + address new problems or concerns. + + Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program + specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any + later version", you have the option of following the terms and + conditions either of that version or of any later version published by + the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version + number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the + Free Software Foundation. + +10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free + programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the + author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the + Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we + sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the + two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free + software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally. + +NO WARRANTY + +11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY + FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN + OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES + PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER + EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE + ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH + YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL + NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. + +12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING + WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR + REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR + DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL + DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM + (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED + INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF + THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR + OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. + +END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS + +How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs + +If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest +possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free +software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms. + +To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to +attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the +exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" +line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. + + One line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. + Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> + + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it + under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the + Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your + option) any later version. + + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but + WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU + General Public License for more details. + + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along + with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., + 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA + +Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail. + +If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this when +it starts in an interactive mode: + + Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author Gnomovision + comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. This is + free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain + conditions; type `show c' for details. + +The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate +parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may be +called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be +mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program. + +You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your +school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if +necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names: + + Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program + `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James + Hacker. + + signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 + Ty Coon, President of Vice + +This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into +proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may +consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the +library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public +License instead of this License.
Add the full text of the GPL 2.0 license to the kernel tree. It was copied directly from: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText Add the required tags for reference and tooling. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> --- LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 | 348 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 348 insertions(+) create mode 100644 LICENSES/GPL-2.0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html