[License-discuss] Retroactively specifying `-only` or `-or-later` for GPLv2 in an adopted project

[Aaron Williamson]

Hi Christian,

Though I'm a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

In a case like this, I would treat the code as GPLv2-only. Typically, the
"or-later" permission is specified in the GPLv2 license headers in
individual code files, or else in some top-level documentation such as the
README file. If there is no such indication that the authors have
authorized use of the code under a later version of the GPL, then the safe
assumption is that they did not authorize this.

Nothing in the text of GPLv2 indicates to me that a failure to specify
"only" means the default is "or later" -- in fact, Section 9 suggests
otherwise:

"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."
>

Best,
Aaron


On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 6:34 AM <c.buhtz at posteo.jp> wrote:

> Hello together,
>
> My question in short: Is "GPLv2" by default "-only" or "-or-later" when
> the suffix is not explicit specified?
>
> I am a member of an upstream maintainer team that took over a project
> [1] two years ago.
> The project itself is round about 15 years old. We are the third
> generation of maintainers,
> and we lack contact with the earlier developers.
>
> The project is licensed under "GPLv2" without explicit specified suffix
> "-only" or "-or-later".
> This is stated on Microsoft GitHub, in the license file, and in the
> header of each code file.
> However, only the standard GPLv2 text has been copied without
> modification.
> I have no further information about the licensing.
>
> If I understand this standard text correctly, it does not clearly
> specify whether the
> project is "GPLv2-only" or "GPLv2-or-later". To my knowledge there are
> no exclusive
> license texts to this two variants. This distinction would need to be
> specified elsewhere.
>
> How should one handle this if I cannot determine it with certainty,
> especially since I
> cannot contact the previous authors? Are there any precedents for this?
>
> Can I freely interpret the license and simply state that it is
> "-or-later"?
> In this case the project would be more flexible to contributions in the
> future.
>
> Are there any court rulings, guidelines, or recommendations from
> advocacy
> groups (e.g., FSF, FSFE, OSSI, etc.) on this matter?
>
> Thank you
> Christian Buhtz
>
> X-Posts on opensource.stackexchange.com [2] and in German on fsfe-de
> mailing list [3]
>
> [1] -- <https://github.com/bit-team/backintime>
> [2] -- <https://opensource.stackexchange.com/q/14980/27952>
> [3] --
> <
> https://lists.fsfe.org/hyperkitty/list/fsfe-de@lists.fsfe.org/message/JKDUOTHYYI6GLPED4AZTRPRSUJYDZFPH/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240822/74af10c5/attachment.htm>