Dear Vladimir: On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:58 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Philippe>And in the same way, the -only and -or-later suffixes applied to > some > Philippe>ids have no meaning whatsoever of their own > > Even though currently "-or-later" is an opaque string, it looks like it might > make sense to add "only this version" modifier to "spdx expressions". > What do you think? > > How could it look like? > EPL-1.0 ONLY > EPL-1.0-only > > The second option is not that bad in my opinion.
I do not see the purpose of changing the expression syntax for something which is at best rare and arcane beyond a few of the common FSF licenses and this has been addressed alright. As for your second option "EPL-1.0-only" that's a new license id alright which is fine for the rare cases when and if you would want to track these kind of options in a more sophisticated way than with a "+". It does not require any changes to the spec as again, identifiers have no meaning at all. They are just made so that they are easy to read and remember for us poor humans... But we could just as well have assigned 2342342sSDSFE423 as an id to the MIT license: that would be silly but that's just to highlight my point. That's actually a good thing that they have no meaning because that way they do not have to be parsed: they were never designed for that, hence you cannot easily infer a syntax to break them in parts: they have no parts, no part separator, no prefix, no suffix and no version (even though it may look like it). -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3739): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/3739 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/32049933/21656 Group Owner: spdx-tech+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
