So we're all on the same page in this discussion: are you are referring to this section of the GPL-2.0 license:
====================== Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. ====================== Tom Incorvia; [email protected]; O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 1:10 PM To: Wheeler, David A <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; SPDX-legal <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring? 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-legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
