On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Wheeler, David A <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > > Okay. Although that's less flexible, that's much easier to transition > (you don't have to change any parsing code), so I see the advantages of > this. > > If this is done: > 1. It needs to cover all the licenses where this is likely. At *least* > GPL and LGPL; I think MPL is probably in this case too. > Agreed, and Jilayne is well aware of this too, hence need to take this as a discussion to the legal group before agreeing on any approach. > 2. The original license terms need to *stay* in SPDX, with modified > clarifying text. Something like this: > > GPL-2.0: > The GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2.0 is acceptable, and > without any clear statement if later versions are acceptable. Where > practical, try to use more specific license expressions such as "GPL-2.0+", > "GPL-2.0-only", or "(GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only)". Historically this > indicator meant "GPL version 2.0 only", but in practice tools often can't > determine if later ones are acceptable (or not) & used this term in such > cases. This specification acknowledges this practice and provides more > specific alternatives when that information is available. > Good point. :-) Kate
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
