Dear Jilayne, My post was nothing personal; I can imagine how difficult it is to manage a community made up of many individuals and interests. All of us should be grateful for that and the decision to create these "-or-Later" identifiers was undoubtedly a collective one at the time, but as multiple and unconcerted reactions prove, it risks remaining a stone in SPDX's shoe for a long time. Regarding the EUPL, we do not require the creation of an "-or-later" identifier unless this was the rule for all licenses.
Kind regards, Le mer. 1 mai 2024 à 18:56, J Lovejoy via lists.spdx.org <opensource= jilayne....@lists.spdx.org> a écrit : > I'm moving the SPDX general list to bcc, as this is really a topic for > spdx-legal. > > In case anyone didn't see it and for context, my response to Christian > that Patrice-Emmanuel references is on the spdx-legal thread and can be > seen here: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3548 > > Some additional responses below: > > On 5/1/24 2:49 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel SCHMITZ via lists.spdx.org wrote: > > Hello Christian, > It is a frequent practice from license stewards to encourage the coverage > of later versions of "their" license. > At the very beginning of the EUPL, licensors are invited to specify > "licensed under the EUPL", which, according to the copyleft clause 5, > clearly refers to the latest version. > This preserves the possibility for a licensor of specifying a precise > version, like "1.2-only" (or the legally similar "1.2"). > The wording of the EUPL probably leaves less uncertainty than saying, for > example, that "licensing under the EUPL" leaves the licensee with the > choice of the version (like it is, apparently, the case for the GNU/GPL). > > At some point, we did some research on licenses that have language > relating to later versions or the like. It was a bit surprising to see how > many variations there are as to the default position, e.g., if no other > indication means one can apply any later version or if no other indication > means this version only. In all cases, to indicate something other than the > default requires additional notation of some form (more on that below). > > But the real question for SPDX is: are those "-or-later" or even "+", > applied to ANY license, justifying specific SPDX identifiers? > > That is a question that has and has had a definitive answer since version > 2.0 of the SPDX License List: > "+" can be applied to any license. > And as of 3.0 - the GNU licenses ids changed, but > "-or-later" and "-only" cannot be used with any license as they are not > part of the license expression syntax identified in > https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v3.0/annexes/SPDX-license-expressions/ > > Like Jilayne wrote, this was most probably a mistake in accepting to do so > for the GNU licenses only (for political reasons). > > I would not characterize the changes to the GNU license ids in version 3.0 > as mistake. That implies a decision make on lack of awareness or knowledge. > We had a various proposals at the time, which were discussed at length over > many months. I do think we made the best decision that we could for that > time and given the options we had. Looking back and judging that decision > with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and current knowledge isn't entirely > helpful. (and if I sound a bit defensive, it is because, on a personal > note, it was one of the most stressful things to navigate as a community > leader. Yet as far as I can tell, the complaints or criticism of this > change tend to come to SPDX/me, instead of to the FSF or both orgs.) > > It would most probably be another mistake to do it for all other licenses, > including the EUPL. > > If you mean to change existing license ids to mimic the specific entries > that the GNU licenses have instead of using the license syntax like "+" - I > would not see this as an optimal path, unless there are extenuating > circumstances to justify it, which I don't think there are. > > It would be more consistent for the SPDX Standard to stick to a strict and > transparent rule: "*a unique SPDX identifier must correspond to a > unique license text*". > > That is the case and always has been. The caveat is that some licenses use > the same exact license text for variants about if you can apply a later > version of that license. E.g., the license text of the GPL is the same, it > is in the license notice that one indicates if you intend that version only > or any later version. Similarly, EUPL also requires some other > communication to indicate the intention for only a specific version to > apply. Of course, this can be done by using an SPDX identifier in the > source code. > > According to this rule, no "-or-later" SPDX identifier should exist, > simply because no precise unique and definitive license text can correspond > to it. > This would not restrict the frequent practice to license under the > "LicenseX-or later" (or "+"), but simply doesn't deserve any new SPDX > identifier. > > I'm not sure I'm following you here, but I think you are saying that we > should not have separate license "line items" on the SPDX License List for > the GNU licenses (e.g., GPL-2.0-only and GPL-2.0-or-later) b/c they use the > same license test. But should, instead use the "+" operator added to the > base id? > > The current SPDX exception introduces confusion and even (IMHO) > compromises SPDX as a standard. > > Again, I'm not sure what is confusing. > > It's never too late to right a mistake... > Kind regards, > P-E Schmitz (EUPL support in the Interoperable Europe Portal) > > > Le jeu. 25 avr. 2024 à 17:09, Christian Meeßen via lists.spdx.org > <christian.meessen=gfz-potsdam...@lists.spdx.org> a écrit : > >> Hello SPDX LegalTeam, >> >> I am an RSE working at the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) >> in Potsdam, Germany. I am involved in working groups in Helmholtz that >> deal with Research Software Engineering aspects, and am also the >> maintainer of the Helmholtz Research Software Directory >> (https://helmholtz.software). We generally encourage the usage of SPDX >> identifiers for software. >> >> I noticed that there exists one identifier for EUPL-1.1 [1] and EUPL-1.2 >> [2] respectively, although the licenses specify that code can be >> redistributed also under later versions of that license unless it is >> explicitly stated otherwise. Here is an example from EUPL-1.2 (clause 5, >> "Copyleft clause"): >> >> > If the Licensee distributes or communicates copies of the Original >> Works or Derivative Works, this Distribution or Communication will be >> done under the terms of this Licence or of a later version of this >> Licence unless the Original Work is expressly distributed only under >> this version of the Licence — for example by communicating 'EUPL v. 1.2 >> only'. >> >> The GPL licenses are separated into "-only" and "-or-later" identifiers. >> Is there a specific reason why this was not applied to the EUPL >> identifiers? Would it be possible to replace the existing identifiers >> with EUPL-1.x-only and EUPL-1.x-or-later identifiers? >> >> The EUPL-1.0 is not affected. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Christian Meeßen >> >> [1] EUPL-1.1: https://spdx.org/licenses/EUPL-1.1.html >> [2] EUPL-1.2: https://spdx.org/licenses/EUPL-1.2.html >> >> -- >> Dr. Christian Meeßen >> eScience Center >> Tel: +49 (0)331 6264-1983 >> Email: christian.mees...@gfz-potsdam.de >> _____________________________________ >> Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam >> Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ >> Stiftung des öff. Rechts Land Brandenburg >> Telegrafenberg A70/320, 14473 Potsdam >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz > pe.schm...@gmail.com > tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 > > > > > -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@gmail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3552): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3552 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/105846418/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
