Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès (2016-09-01 15:13 +0300) wrote: > >> Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> skribis: >> >>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:59:11 +0200 >>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: >>> >>>> Are there GPLv2 license headers that lack the “or any later version” >>>> wording, or anything that explicitly says “version 2 only”? If not, >>>> it’s v2-or-later. >> >> [...] >> >>> ./mkfs.ubifs/crc16.h: ' * Implements the standard CRC-16: * Width 16 * >>> Poly 0x8005 ( x^16 + x^15 + x^2 + 1 ) * Init 0 * * Copyright ( c ) >>> 2005 Ben Gardner <bgard...@wabtec.com> * * This code was taken from >>> the linux kernel. The license is GPL Version 2. ' >> >> OK, GPLv2-only! > > Wait, why? There are files that have a full license headers with "or > any later version", for example "docfdisk.c", "flash_erase.c" and > others. That's why I thought both gpl2 and gpl2+ should be listed.
But they are combined, so the combined work, which is what we (should) care about, is ‘gpl2’. At least that’s how I usually do it, but I agree that this is an undocumented convention that’s probably not unanimously followed. Ludo’.
