On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:59:17PM +0000, Gisi, Mark wrote: > If the source file license is GPL-2.0 that currently means only one > thing. GNU General Public License version 2. There is no confusion. > > I understand that this has been discussed at length but I not sure > the problem is what people think it is. We need to find source code > file notice examples that can't be expressed using the current > license expression language in order to justify making changes.
The problems with using ‘GPL-2.0’ to mean “GPL v2 only” are: 1. It's not immediately obvious that the author actually thought through only vs. or-later. 2. There's no way to express the “I just found this stand-alone license file but have not looked at license-grant comments” or the similar case when the license-grant comments are not given. Maybe you are very clear about what those cases mean, but I think the length of this thread and the larger discussion show that while there may be no confusion for you, different folks have different opinions on what is implied in case 2. > I am trying to move away from the theoretical problem descriptions > and find a collection of real world use cases that define the > problem and that would help lead to a solution. The real-world use cases are outlined in [1]. Case 4 in that list is the “GitHub example” from which this thread takes its subject. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal#Examples_.2F_Challenges -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
