On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Tom Incorvia
<tom.incorvia@...> 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