Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV check-in

[Bake Timmons]

> In drivers/media/dvb/b2c2 there there's a file that states "either
> version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." I
> just put this as GPLv2 or later. OK?

The "2.1" raises a red flag for me--I recall the LGPL having this
version, but not the GPL.  Even if you meant LGPL, you must state
LGPLv2.1 or later--no two ways about it given your quote.

> Also, there are files that say "see flexcop.c for copyright information"
> but don't give the licence, so I took the licence from flexcop.c instead
> of saying that it didn't give the licence.

Good idea.

> Also, there were files that were under the LGPL but didn't specify the
> version. Presumably, we do the same with these as with the files that
> are under the GPL but don't give the version. But if we call the
> unspecified GPLs version 2, what do we call the unspecified LPGLs?
> I'm not sure we really need to get into these kinds of details. All we
> are doing is verifying that the kernel is free, right? And all versions
> of the GPL and the LGPL are free, so does it really matter what version
> they are?

Yes, the LGPL uses the same "any version" language.  IMO, there are
three answers to the unspecified GPL question: (1) "GPL" or perhaps "GPL
(no version specified)", (2) GPLv2, and (3) write the author and use his
answer.  Since Torvalds has never commented on the LGPL version, I would
say (1) "LGPL" or perhaps "LGPL (no version specified)" or (2) write the
author...

While I used to think that these details can be excessive for our
purpose, they come up often enough that we should try to air out our
issues.  I myself am grateful to this list for motivating me to learn
about issues that we might underestimate now.

People on this list clearly differ in how much they care about the
version, so that is why no matter whatever policy one chooses, I believe
that at minimum the original license comment should be included in the
KFV file to help the web user.