Even the Constitution requires occasional amendment. On 10/3/13 4:07 PM, "Gisi, Mark" <mark.g...@windriver.com> wrote:
>Although I agree we want to avoid making changes to the license list, >change is inevitable. An important consideration is that the SPDX 1.2 >spec (which is planned for release this month) includes a field to >specify which version of the SPDX license list was used. This is >particularly important in the event the list changes. An SPDX file >creator is able to record the list version in the SPDX file from where >they obtain their license identifiers from. This essentially achieves two >things 1) gives SPDX file creators immunity with respect to future >changes to the license list, and 2) makes it easier for the SPDX working >group to make the tough decision to change the license list when it makes >sense. > >- Mark > > >-----Original Message----- >From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org >[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wheeler, David A >Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:40 AM >To: Jilayne Lovejoy; Bradley M.Kuhn >Cc: spdx-t...@spdx.org; SPDX-legal >Subject: RE: License: spdx-license=IDENTIFIER > >Jilayne Lovejoy: >>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 > >>And logged this as something to bring up, but we have been busy with >>trying to finish other tasks and it hasn't risen to the surface. Of >>course, the worry is that changing the short identifiers will screw up >>people who are already using the SPDX License List (we endeavored to try >>to never change them...) There is a good number of companies already >>using it and probably more than we even know of. In any case, if it is >>going to help reduce confusion or ambiguity and we can figure out a way >>to make sure this change is well documented, then we need to consider >>making the change. I will be sure to bring this up at the General >>Meeting tomorrow and on the next legal call (next Thursday) > >I agree that once an identifier is given a specific meaning, that meaning >MUST not change. But I don't see a big harm in creating a new, clearer >SPDX identifier for a given license. > >There should be only one "recommended" identifier for a given license, >but you could record older identifiers marking what license they refer >to, noting that it's a deprecated identifier and listing the "better" >ones instead. > >The GPL and LGPL are the most widely used OSS licenses, by most measures, >and its version distinctions really matter for many people. Having good, >clear identifiers for this especially common use case seems like a >reasonable thing to do. > >--- David A. Wheeler > > >Cheers, > > >Jilayne Lovejoy >SPDX Legal Team lead >lovejoyl...@gmail.com > >_______________________________________________ >Spdx-legal mailing list >Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org >https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal > > >_______________________________________________ >Spdx-legal mailing list >Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org >https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal >_______________________________________________ >Spdx-legal mailing list >Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org >https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
