Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:06 AM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:
Hi John, all,[...]
I think the thing that makes the GNU family of licenses different from otherJilayne:
Thank you for the detailed write up and hard work you are pouring into
John and all:
I find this whole discussion quixotic: noble but pointless!
This ship has sailed IMHO long ago and GPL-2.0 means GPL-2.0 and no
later version to most everyone.
This has been the case pre-SPDX in Linux and Linux distros.
This is the case now that we see major adoption of SDPX licenses
identifiers in U-Boot, Linux, Eclipse, NPM, Rubygems and more.
e.g. 100K+ projects, programmers and files are using GPL-2.0 as
meaning GPL-2.0 and only!
FWIW we had a discussion on this in 2015  in the thread
"Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?"
I was then on the side of making this precise and stating that GPL-2.0
meant any later version by default. David Wheeler quite rightly
dismissed my arguments then and I fully agree with him now.
I think that whatever is done on the SPDX side to be
precise vs. being accurate-enough and good-enough will unlikely ever
be adopted as the magnitude of the education and changes required
would be immense for minuscule benefits and hyper confusion.
Furthermore, this futility may hinder SPDX adoption and our less
noble quest to simplify licensing statements in a good enough way.
In recap, I find it futile and pointless and there are zero benefits
for SPDX and zero benefits for the vast majority of programmers.
I am really sorry folks are wasting their time discussing this.
Therefore, I wish we could just stop discussing this distracting topic
as there are so many other more important things to deal with.