Re: [PATCH v3] LICENSES/LGPL-2.1: Add LGPL-2.1-or-later as valid identifiers

Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-spdx,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <Ybs8eJOBwxw/[email protected]>
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:30:14PM +0800, Cai Huoqing wrote:
> On 16 12月 21 13:17:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Some files have been flagged with the new LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > identifier which replace the original LGPL-2.1+ in the SPDX license
> > identifier specification, but the identifiers are not mentioned as
> > valid in the LGPL-2.1 license file.
> > 
> > Add it, together with the LGPL-2.1-only at the the license file.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > index 27bb4342a3e8..b73f9b6230f5 100644
> > --- a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
> >  Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1
> > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-only
> >  Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> >  SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1.html
> The URL is deprecated, do we need to update it together.

No.

> The same, GPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0

Again, no.  We are using an older version of the SPDX specification,
this is fine.

thanks,

greg k-h
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.