Hi Gary, Yes, I would support having a warning when the “+” operator follows an ID ending in a “-or-later”, or “-only”.
But many other licenses have no meaning when followed by “+”. For example, “MIT+” makes no sense. I had once proposed that in the license table in https://spdx.org/licenses/ we add one more column “can be followed by + operator”, but it got no support. Best regards, Marc-Etienne -- Marc-Etienne Vargenau [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Nokia, 12, rue Jean-Bart, 91300 Massy, FRANCE Mobile: +33 6 24 49 78 68<tel:+33624497868> Senior Specialist Open Source Planned absence: none De : [email protected] <[email protected]> de la part de Gary O'Neall via lists.spdx.org <[email protected]> Date : mardi, 19 septembre 2023 à 09:12 À : [email protected] <[email protected]> Objet : Re: [spdx] Catching Up on License IDs Ending in "+" CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Kyle, The “+” operator is still supported in the license expression syntax. The “GPL-2.0+” license ID was introduced before the “+” and all ID’s that end in “+” are now deprecated. Per the request of the license stewards, we introduced ID’s ending in “-or-later” and “-only”. Per the syntax spec, adding the “+” operator after any of these licenses are allowed, but as you mentioned they do not make much sense semantically. In the license expression parsers I maintain, I do not issue a warning when the “+” operator follows an ID ending in a “-or-later”, or “-only”. Since all the ID’s ending in “+” are deprecated, I issue warnings that a deprecated license ID is used. I’m open to feedback from the rest of the community if we should issue a validation warning when a “+” follows the ID’s ending in “-or-later” or “-only”. Gary From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Kyle Mitchell Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [spdx] Catching Up on License IDs Ending in "+" I maintain a few packages packaging and implementing bits of SPDX, especially the license list and expression syntax, for the JavaScript npm package system. I'm seeing some changes in recent https://spdx.org/licenses/licenses.json and would like to make sure I understand them before updating packages or automation to update them. Do I correctly understand that "+" now appears at the end of some listed license IDs only to express that some expressions using the "+" operator, like GPL-2.0+, are now deprecated in favor of "-or-later" IDs, like GPL-2.0-or-later? In other words, SPDX does not plan to add more licenses with identifiers ending in "+" going forward? I see that the "+" suffix remains valid in the simple-expression production rule of the expression syntax grammar. But I take it "GPL-2.0++" should not be considered a valid license expression. Many thanks for any helping hand. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1769): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1769 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/101448004/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/leave/2655439/21656/1698928721/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
