GPLv2-only identifiers (was Re: License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER)

2013-10-07 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 01:07 (EDT) on Thursday: yes, I actually agree. I have long thought that the short identifiers would be better served as: GPL-2.0+ and GPL-2.0-only I could live with that, although the .0 makes no sense there, IMO, and I really do like the format that FSF standardized

Re: License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER

2013-10-02 Thread Jilayne Lovejoy
the text: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER would be adequate. I'm told that dmg suggested that it'd be better to say something like: License of this file is: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER and while I agreed with dmg, but I further suggested: License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER would be adequate

Problems with identifiers need sorted before using License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER in sources (was Re: Scope of licenses to be covered by SPDX)

2013-10-01 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
I just posted another message about this License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER idea that various folks approached me about at LinuxCon. As I noted in that message, if SPDX identifiers are going to be used in the wild not merely as an internal representation for SPDX experts, but also for mere mortals