On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Gary wrote: > > > > Will that be: > > > > > > > > a. GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only > > > > > > The "ONLY" would be an operator, so I'd expect to see: (GPL-2.0 > > > ONLY OR GPL-3.0 ONLY) > > > > That's certainly possible as well, and it would be easier to parse > > with the space. But you could also have an ‘-only’ operator with > > no space (like we currently use ‘GPL-2.0+’ instead of ‘GPL-2.0 > > +’). Aside from ease-of-parsing, I don't see a technical reason > > to prefer one over the other. > > Since "-" is an allowed character for a license ID, it would be more > challenging to write a parser for the "-only" operator since we > would have to determine if the "-" is part of the ID or is part of > the operator. BTW "+" is not allowed in the license ID and "GPL-2.0 > +" I believe is legal. I have a strong preference for "ONLY" being > the operator over "-only".
If we go with the ‘-only’ operator, I expect we'd want to forbid short identifiers which ended with ‘-only’. That would make parsing unambiguous, and while you'd have to look a few characters ahead to make the call, I don't think it would be a large technical burden. But yeah, parsing would be easier if you could rely on space separators before most operators, with ‘+’ as a special case because the character is already forbidden in short identifiers, that makes life easier. So I'd prefer ‘FOO ONLY’ if the legal team is ok with it, but feel like ‘FOO-only’ is achievable if the legal team has a strong preference for it. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
