True. Still, the Constitution has only been amended 17 times (the bill of rights were added in one fell swoop) in 226 years. That's roughly one amendment every 13 years. :)
________________________________________________________ Thomas H. Vidal, Esq. Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2250 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Direct Dial: 310.300.2950 Office: 310.300.2900 Facsimile: 310.300.2901 tvi...@agmblaw.com www.twitter.com/thomasvidal www.linkedin.com/in/thomashvidal ________________________________________________________ The information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named in the above address. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Philip Odence Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 5:11 AM To: Mark Gisi; Wheeler, David A; Jilayne Lovejoy Cc: spdx-t...@spdx.org; SPDX-legal Subject: Re: Immunity from changes in license identifiers coming in SPDX 1.2 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 _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
