Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

> On Nov 9, 2017, at 12:54 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:12:39PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: >> The ambiguous operator (first floated as “unclear version” in [3]) >> and my OR-MAYBE proposal [4] are both attempts to allow an SPDX >> License

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

> On Nov 9, 2017, at 10:48 AM, John Sullivan wrote: > > "Wheeler, David A" writes: > >> John Sullivan: >>> A key part is missing in the description of the original FSF proposal here >>> though -- which is deprecating the existing GPL-2.0 and similar "plain"

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

"Wheeler, David A" writes: > John Sullivan: >> A key part is missing in the description of the original FSF proposal here >> though -- which is deprecating the existing GPL-2.0 and similar "plain" >> identifiers for GNU licenses so that the identifiers used always indicate >>

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:31:07AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses And they have an official position on the javierwilson/tonto case, where the GPL-3.0 text is in LICENSE, but no other file in the repository contains copyright or licensing

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

(top-posting, as this part isn’t directly related) It just occurred to me that how SPDX currently has the identifiers: plain GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ is the same pattern that Fedora uses: they have a slightly different nomenclature, but also have a “plain” identifier and the + version: GPLv2 and

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:19:31AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > I think that whatever is done on the SPDX side to be > precise vs. being accurate-enough and good-enough will unlikely ever > be adopted as the magnitude of the education and changes required > would be immense… Backwards

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

Hi John, all, Finally getting back to this important issue after 3 weeks of traveling. As we have made some progress with preparations for the next release otherwise, I’m keen to try and sort out the final issues here, so we can include the resulting changes in this release as well. As it’s

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:44:54AM -0400, John Sullivan wrote: > I understand SPDX doesn't want to make legal judgments. Which is > why it should indicate when there is uncertainty. While SPDX should avoid making legal judgements, I don't think it necessarily follows that they need to enable

RE: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

John Sullivan: > A key part is missing in the description of the original FSF proposal here > though -- which is deprecating the existing GPL-2.0 and similar "plain" > identifiers for GNU licenses so that the identifiers used always indicate > whether the version is "only" or "any later". > > As I

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

Hi Jilayne, Thanks for writing this up. A key part is missing in the description of the original FSF proposal here though -- which is deprecating the existing GPL-2.0 and similar "plain" identifiers for GNU licenses so that the identifiers used always indicate whether the version is "only" or

RE: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

Hi Jilayne, It would be helpful to provide actual source code examples of where the proposed operator would be applicable. This was done for each operator included in the first release of the license expression language which was very productive: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples

Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:13:56PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > But this missed a key part of the core goals of SPDX: Implicit in > those above goals is that the SPDX License List (including the > license short identifiers and the license expression language) aim > to provide a “language” to identify