Re: GPL-2.0 vs GPL-2.0-only (and + vs. -or-later)

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:44:02PM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote:
> Hey SPDX luminaries and experts,
> 
> It has come to my attention that the SPDX project has deprecated the use
> of 'GPL-2.0' and 'GPL-2.0+' as license identifiers.  See the 'Deprecated License Identifiers' section
> on https://spdx.org/licenses/
> 
> The preferred names for these are now:
> 'GPL-2.0-only' and 'GPL-2.0-or-later'.
> 
> The kernel uses all of these identifiers, in the following quantities in
> C and assembly source files:
> 10117 'GPL-2.0$'
> 11845 'GPL-2.0 '
> 9373 'GPL-2.0-only$'
> 5657 'GPL-2.0-only '
> 3250  'GPL-2.0+'
> 8179 'GPL-or-later'
>   125  'LGPL'
> 2896 not using 'GPL' (LGPL, MIT, BSD, etc.)
> 48489 '[^L]GPL'
> 
> out of 51447 total SPDX-License-Identifier lines
> 
> That's 21962 for GPL-2.0 vs. 9379 for GPL-2.0-only
> and 8179 for GPL-2.0+ vs. 3250 for GPL-2.0-or-later.
> 
> My question is this - when I am adding a SPDX-License-Identifier to a file that
> has not had one previously, which form should I prefer?
> 
> I have been trying to match the existing usage within a directory, sub-system
> or file group, so sometimes I use the 'GPL-2.0-only' id, and sometimes the 'GPL-2.0' id.
> Sometimes I use 'GPL-2.0-or-later' and sometimes I use 'GPL-2.0+'.  My preference
> is for 'GPL-2.0' and 'GPL-2.0+', based on https://docs.kernel.org/process/license-rules.html

Please do this.

> Legally, the IDs should be interpreted semantically identically with their partner.  And I don't
> agree with the GNU project's rationale for deprecating the 'GPL-2.0' ID, so
> that's my preference, all other factors being equal.
> However, seeing Thomas' comment below makes me question this preference.
> 
> The last time I see this discussed on linux-spdx is in 2022.  I'm just curious if anything has changed
> since then.  I also note that Thomas said in 2022:
> 
> "Please don't propagate the GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ tags. They are
> outdated (still valid) in the SPDX spec, which reminds me that I should
> update the relevant documentation..."
> See https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spdx/87ee0k0wrn.ffs@tglx/
> 
> Does this imply that we want to avoid propagating GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ tags
> in the kernel?

Eventually, yes, but let's do the real hard work of actually marking
everything before worrying about which version of the tag to use.  We
can "easily" convert everything over to the new versions once that is
done if needed.

thanks,

greg k-h