Re: update on only/or later etc.
W. Trevor King
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:37:50PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote:
Deprecate the "GPL-2.0" identifier and add the word “only” for GPLI think this “deprecation with an eventual removal” approach is part
of all of the proposals, and is not unique to the “coin new
per-version license identifiers” approach.
Keep the + modifier in the license expression languageI am strongly against having both a ‘GPL-2.0+’ license ID and a ‘+’
operator. I think committing to a ‘GPL-2.0+’ license ID is an
unfortunate but tenable postition. And if we go that way, I'd rather
remove the ‘+’ operator entirely.
I'd be ok with ‘GPL-2.0-or-later’ while preserving the ‘+’ operator
for other licenses. But if a ‘+’ operator is deemed not good enough
for the GPL, which licenses would it be good enough for? This feels
like “we don't know when we'd recommend ‘+’, but didn't have the heart
to kill it”.
Personally, I think the ‘+’ operator *is* good enough for the GPL, but
if that view was universal we wouldn't be adding an or-later license
ID. If we cannot build a consensus around using ‘+’ for the GPL, I'd
rather drop it entirely. My concern with coining license identifiers
for ‘GPL-2.0-or-later’ and similar is the combinatoric increase in
license identifiers, and that's more of an aesthetic concern than a
technical concern (although there are some technical impacts, e.g. the
size of license-list-XML and license-list-data will grow).
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