Hi David W, Krys, David S,
We've started having some discussions with FSF about what they'd
prefer, and their preference seems to be GPL-2.0-only, so we probably want
to go that way rather than
introducing the "!" idea.
The legal team needs to discuss how we can make this type of
transition. I think we've got the target now, challenge is how to
navigate to get there with the starting point we have and not break too
much stuff. Jilayne will be adding this as a topic to one of the
upcoming SPDX legal team calls. ;-)
David S - will the GPL-2.0-only (and GPL-3.0-only) handle the cases
you're worried about or do you have other examples where a comment will be
useful? To Krys' point, the syntax of the license expressions means that
you could potentially follow it with a space then any comment. However,
I'm not sure how robust (or not) the parsers are and how precise people are
about using the "(" ")" when there are expresssions....
Kate
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Wheeler, David A <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have previously commented that it would be valuable to have a “!” suffix
> meaning “exactly this version”.
>
>
>
> Technically “GPL-2.0” in SPDX means “only this version”, but in practice
> many practitioners & tools are sloppy about this. Part of the problem is
> that tools can easily determine that “GPL version 2.0 is in this package”
> but in many cases they cannot easily determine automatically a distinction
> between “2.0 or greater” versus “2.0 and no other”. In addition, in many
> cases it doesn’t matter, so the increased effort would be a waste of time.
> What the tools really need to indicate is a way in SPDX to indicate “2.0 at
> least is here, and I don’t know if ‘or later’ is okay”. Since SPDX doesn’t
> have a mechanism to report this, “GPL-2.0” is sometimes being used to
> report of “I know 2.0 is here, and I don’t know if ‘or later’ is okay” -
> even though it’s technically not compliant with the SDPX spec.
>
>
>
> It’d be helpful to have a simple way to indicate “I really mean this
> specific version” (my “!” suffix) vs. “this version at least is okay, and
> I’m not sure about later versions” (which is how “GPL-2.0” is currently
> interpreted; maybe another suffix like “?” or “*” would help to mark this
> case).
>
>
>
> --- David A. Wheeler
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:spdx-tech-bounces@
> lists.spdx.org] *On Behalf Of *Krys Nuvadga
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:58 AM
> *To:* David Seaward
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [spdx-tech] Can I add a comment/suffix to the
> SPDX-License-Identifier line?
>
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I'm not sure of this but I think it is safer to just stick with the
> "license expressions syntax"provided in the documentation.
>
> You can see SPDX Specification 2.1 (web version)
> <https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60>Appendix
> IV <https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60>
> for details.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:30 AM, David Seaward <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My goal is to visually disambiguate "GPL-3.0" and "GPL-3.0+" for human
> readers. Is it possible to add a comment or suffix to the SPDX line
> without breaking conforming parsers?
>
> For example,
>
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0 (only)
>
> or
>
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0 # only
>
> rather than just
>
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0
>
> Regards,
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spdx-tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> krys Nuvadga
>
> Piar, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spdx-tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
>
>
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
