@kernellogger @thelinuxEXP @Conan_Kudo @fabyk @tuxedocomputers The hypocrisy was really incredible.

They don't care about proprietary modules that don't respect the users freedom and don't enforce their license against those, but when it comes to free software modules, that are under a free software license that does a better job defending the users freedom, suddenly they're ready to enforce their license?

No matter what some documentation says, MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") can only legally mean any version of the GNU General Public License, as per the GPLv2;
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.

Too bad not actually reading the GPLv2 seems very common.

For GPLv2-only, you *must* write; MODULE_LICENSE("GPLv2-only").
For GPLv2-or-later, you *must* write; MODULE_LICENSE("GPLv2-or-later").

Of course the licensing macro won't accept either?