On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> wrote: >> This + is a suffix and not a freestanding character, right? >> So "GPL-2.0+" is valid but "GPL-2.0 +" would not be valid?
> My interpretation of the spec "GPL-2.0 +" and "GPL-2.0+" are both > syntactically > valid (as well as MIT+, LicenseRef-21+ and any other listed license ID or > licenseRef). This is not any statement on the interpretation, just the > license > expression syntax (I'll leave the interpretation discussions to a separate > thread). > In general, I would prefer any operator character(s) to be excluded from the > allowed characters for a license reference to keep the parsing clear and > easier to implement. Gary, I cannot envision a simpler implementation than splitting on spaces. A plus sign specified as a suffix that is not attached to a license key would no longer be a suffix to me, but something entirely different. My interpretation of the spec is that the + sign must be attached to the license key and all examples provided in the spec support this interpretation. If that part is not clear, let's fix the spec. This is not something frozen. Now that said, I do not like the plus at all and we should remove entirely from the spec. -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
