On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Wheeler, David A <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Philippe Ombredanne <[email protected]> >wrote:
David: > Schuberth, Sebastian <[email protected]> wrote: I think you are misquoted my reply for being from Sebastian. > The issue is how the software is licensed, not what the text of the GPL > (or anything else) is. The use of "+" to mean "or later" is a long-standing > convention preceding SPDX. Pardon me, but I think the text(s) of the GPL define how the the software is licensed... As I said initially I agree this is indeed a long standing convention. But this does not mean that this a correct convention and that the status-quo should continue. FWIW, I said essentially the same thing as you about the origin of this + notation: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Philippe Ombredanne <[email protected]> wrote: >> So to me it [the +] is an exception to the GPL-2.0 (or 3) to disallow the >> use of >> other versions. A fairly common exception because it is used in the >> kernel and that likely led to this flawed but widely spread approach >> to be adopted by Linux distros. And later adopted by SPDX. On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Philippe Ombredanne <[email protected]> wrote: >> Essentially GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ mean exactly the same the thing. > No, there's a need to distinguish between "exactly this version" or "this > version of later". > Some software, such as the Linux kernel, are GPL version 2.0 only. My point here is that when I refer to the GPL 2.0 I have by default the rights to use any other version, unless as a special EXCEPTION you are telling me that I can use only this version and no other version. So GPL-2.0 with no-other-version would be capturing better the exceptional nature of the version restriction, than GPL-2.0+ does in forcing a plus in the general case -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
