On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Tom Incorvia <tom.incor...@microfocus.com> wrote:
> So we're all on the same page in this discussion: are you are > referring to this section of the GPL-2.0 license: > > ====================== > 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. > ====================== Yes, exactly that, and the related text found in the proposed notice text found at the end of the GPL text: ======================== 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. ======================== ... which is the default notice I see in most cases (except for the not-so-uncommon case of the Kernel). My take is that the large majority of programmers applying the GPL to their work just take the default notice and only a very few make an exception and restrict this to an exact version. I even have pseudo scientific evidence to support this claim ;) http://www.googlefight.com/free+software+foundation+and+no+other+version-vs-free+software+foundation%3B+either+version+2.php -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
