Re: update on only/or later etc.

Gary O'Neall

I think this is a good overall solution.

It solves the issue raised by the FSF and is reasonably compatible. On the last legal call, I raised a concern that it didn't handle the case where the version may be ambiguous. After the call, I realized that we have this issue today and we don't really need to solve this in this release of the license list. Probably better to solve one issue at a time, and I have no problem starting with the issue raised by Richard and the FSF.

Thanks Jilayne for moving this forward.

Additional thoughts on the '+' operator below:

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-
bounces@...] On Behalf Of W. Trevor King
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:53 PM
To: J Lovejoy
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: update on only/or later etc.

Keep the + modifier in the license expression language
- this allows use of + with other licenses as always, no change, no
backwards compatibility
I 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

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”.
I agree with Trevor that we should not have both the + modifier and the GPL-2.0+ as a license ID as it makes the parsing ambiguous.

My preference would be GPL-2.0-or-later and preserving the '+' operator. The '+' operator could be useful for licenses where they do not explicitly handle the 'or later' versions in the license text and it maintains better compatibility.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.