Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Philippe Ombredanne
 wrote:
> Alan, Linus,
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Alan Cox  wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800
>> Linus Torvalds  wrote:
>>
>>> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
>>>  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" ->
>>> "", 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] 
> 

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Philippe Ombredanne
 wrote:
> Alan, Linus,
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Alan Cox  wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800
>> Linus Torvalds  wrote:
>>
>>> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
>>>  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" ->
>>> "", 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: 

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Alan, Linus,

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Alan Cox  wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800
> Linus Torvalds  wrote:
>
>> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
>>  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" ->
>> "", 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
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Alan, Linus,

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Alan Cox  wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800
> Linus Torvalds  wrote:
>
>> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
>>  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" ->
>> "", 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
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Jonas Oberg]

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- (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,

-- 
Jonas Öberg
Executive Director

FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of technology in your hands. Your
support enables our work, please join us today http://fsfe.org/join

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Jonas Oberg]

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- (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,

-- 
Jonas Öberg
Executive Director

FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of technology in your hands. Your
support enables our work, please join us today http://fsfe.org/join

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 03:31:05PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800
> Linus Torvalds  wrote:
> 
> > You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
> > 
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
> >  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" ->
> > "", 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.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 03:31:05PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800
> Linus Torvalds  wrote:
> 
> > You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
> > 
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
> >  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" ->
> > "", 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.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Alan Cox]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800
Linus Torvalds  wrote:

> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
> 
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
>  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" ->
> "", 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

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Alan Cox]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:14:00 -0800
Linus Torvalds  wrote:

> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
> 
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
>  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" ->
> "", 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

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:
> 2017-11-16 19:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner :
> > 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 
> 
> NACKed-by: Charlemagne Lasse 
> 
> 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

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:
> 2017-11-16 19:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner :
> > 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 
> 
> NACKed-by: Charlemagne Lasse 
> 
> 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

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-18 21:41 GMT+01:00 Charlemagne Lasse :
> 2017-11-18 20:14 GMT+01:00 Linus Torvalds :
>> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>>
> 
>> I refuse to change the original copyright wording due to idiotic
>> internal FSF politics that tried to change history.
>


> 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:


> +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"


> +TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" missing before
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION"


> +One line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.

This should have been




> +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


> +signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989

This should have been

  , 1 April 1989

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-18 21:41 GMT+01:00 Charlemagne Lasse :
> 2017-11-18 20:14 GMT+01:00 Linus Torvalds :
>> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>>
> 
>> I refuse to change the original copyright wording due to idiotic
>> internal FSF politics that tried to change history.
>


> 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:


> +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"


> +TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" missing before
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION"


> +One line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.

This should have been




> +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


> +signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989

This should have been

  , 1 April 1989

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-18 20:14 GMT+01:00 Linus Torvalds :
> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>

> 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.

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-18 20:14 GMT+01:00 Linus Torvalds :
> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>

> 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.

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Jonas Oberg]

>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 | jo...@fsfe.org
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Jonas Oberg]

>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 | jo...@fsfe.org
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Linus Torvalds]

You may be confusing things because of a newer version.

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
 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" ->
"", 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

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Linus Torvalds]

You may be confusing things because of a newer version.

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Charlemagne Lasse
 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" ->
"", 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

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-18 20:03 GMT+01:00 Charlemagne Lasse :

>> +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"

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-18 20:03 GMT+01:00 Charlemagne Lasse :

>> +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"

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-16 19:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner :
> 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 

NACKed-by: Charlemagne Lasse 

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

> +GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> +Version 2, June 1991
> +
> +Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

That should be:  "Inc.," and not "Inc."


> +
> +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"


> +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"


> +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:




> +Copyright (C)  
> +
> +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.


> +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:

, 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"

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-16 19:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner :
> 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 

NACKed-by: Charlemagne Lasse 

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

> +GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> +Version 2, June 1991
> +
> +Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

That should be:  "Inc.," and not "Inc."


> +
> +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"


> +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"


> +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:




> +Copyright (C)  
> +
> +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.


> +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:

, 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"

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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 

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman 

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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 

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman 

[patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Thomas Gleixner]

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 

---
 LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 |  348 +
 1 file changed, 348 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 LICENSES/GPL-2.0

--- /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 

[patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Thomas Gleixner]

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 

---
 LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 |  348 +
 1 file changed, 348 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 LICENSES/GPL-2.0

--- /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