|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
I am not confusing these at all. The gist of what I am saying is that
the plus is a legacy that should not be there. It does not make sense to
add to the large majority of GPL in the wild a + just to
|
I am not confusing these at all. The gist of what I am saying is that
the plus is a legacy that should not be there. It does not make sense to
add to the large majority of GPL in the wild a + just to
|
By
Philippe Ombredanne
·
#1268
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
Gary, I cannot envision a simpler implementation than splitting on spaces.
A plus sign specified as a suffix that is not attached to a license key would
no longer be a suffix to me, but something
|
Gary, I cannot envision a simpler implementation than splitting on spaces.
A plus sign specified as a suffix that is not attached to a license key would
no longer be a suffix to me, but something
|
By
Philippe Ombredanne
·
#1267
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
<tom.incorvia@...> wrote:
Yes, exactly that, and the related text found in the proposed
notice text found at the end of the GPL text:
========================
This program is free
|
<tom.incorvia@...> wrote:
Yes, exactly that, and the related text found in the proposed
notice text found at the end of the GPL text:
========================
This program is free
|
By
Philippe Ombredanne
·
#1266
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
Good point.
What makes this particular syntax more confusing is that pre-2.0 the + was
considered part of the license identifier. It was promoted to an operator
in the 2.0 spec which does create
|
Good point.
What makes this particular syntax more confusing is that pre-2.0 the + was
considered part of the license identifier. It was promoted to an operator
in the 2.0 spec which does create
|
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#1265
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
Hi Philippe,
[Gary]
[Gary] My interpretation of the spec "GPL-2.0 +" and "GPL-2.0+" are both syntactically valid (as well as MIT+, LicenseRef-21+ and any other listed license ID or licenseRef).
|
Hi Philippe,
[Gary]
[Gary] My interpretation of the spec "GPL-2.0 +" and "GPL-2.0+" are both syntactically valid (as well as MIT+, LicenseRef-21+ and any other listed license ID or licenseRef).
|
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#1264
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
I said:
Just a few nitpicks on my previous email:
* I realize that "GPL-2.0+" is in the list of "deprecated" license identifiers, so in some sense there is a "GPL-2.0+" license identifier. But I
|
I said:
Just a few nitpicks on my previous email:
* I realize that "GPL-2.0+" is in the list of "deprecated" license identifiers, so in some sense there is a "GPL-2.0+" license identifier. But I
|
By
David A. Wheeler
·
#1263
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
Philippe Ombredanne:
You may be confusing a SPDX "license identifier" and a SPDX "license expression". It's a subtle point.
The purpose of a "license identifier" is to identify a specific text of a
|
Philippe Ombredanne:
You may be confusing a SPDX "license identifier" and a SPDX "license expression". It's a subtle point.
The purpose of a "license identifier" is to identify a specific text of a
|
By
David A. Wheeler
·
#1262
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Gary O'Neall <gary@...> wrote:
This + is a suffix and not a freestanding character, right?
So "GPL-2.0+" is valid but "GPL-2.0 +" would not be
|
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Gary O'Neall <gary@...> wrote:
This + is a suffix and not a freestanding character, right?
So "GPL-2.0+" is valid but "GPL-2.0 +" would not be
|
By
Philippe Ombredanne
·
#1261
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
So we're all on the same page in this discussion: are you are referring to this section of the GPL-2.0 license:
======================
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
|
So we're all on the same page in this discussion: are you are referring to this section of the GPL-2.0 license:
======================
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
|
By
Tom Incorvia
·
#1260
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
David:
I think you are misquoted my reply for being from Sebastian.
Pardon me, but I think the text(s) of the GPL define how the the
software is licensed...
As I said initially I agree this is indeed
|
David:
I think you are misquoted my reply for being from Sebastian.
Pardon me, but I think the text(s) of the GPL define how the the
software is licensed...
As I said initially I agree this is indeed
|
By
Philippe Ombredanne
·
#1259
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
Hi Philippe,
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#1258
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
Schuberth, Sebastian <sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote:
The issue is how the software is licensed, not what the text of the GPL (or anything else) is. The use of "+" to mean "or later" is a
|
Schuberth, Sebastian <sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote:
The issue is how the software is licensed, not what the text of the GPL (or anything else) is. The use of "+" to mean "or later" is a
|
By
David A. Wheeler
·
#1257
·
|
|
Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
<sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote:
I not see any reason why a + would not be allowed in a reference, and
there is no ambiguity since the + always something attached to an id or
ref string, not
|
<sebastian.schuberth@...> wrote:
I not see any reason why a + would not be allowed in a reference, and
there is no ambiguity since the + always something attached to an id or
ref string, not
|
By
Philippe Ombredanne
·
#1256
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
The only thing is that it’s less succinct (slightly greater editing load) and likely to be forgotten/left out, limiting its usefulness.
|
The only thing is that it’s less succinct (slightly greater editing load) and likely to be forgotten/left out, limiting its usefulness.
|
By
Kris.re <Kris.re@...>
·
#1255
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
I like the idea of an attribute type in the element optional (e.g. <optional type=...). I believe it would allow tools writers as well as humans to distinguish an optional field easily and also allow
|
I like the idea of an attribute type in the element optional (e.g. <optional type=...). I believe it would allow tools writers as well as humans to distinguish an optional field easily and also allow
|
By
Gary O'Neall
·
#1254
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
Basically, <optional> is fine for all the optional sections, and could even be annotated if desired (e.g. <optional type=”footer”>). A potential advantage to specifying the “kind” of optional
|
Basically, <optional> is fine for all the optional sections, and could even be annotated if desired (e.g. <optional type=”footer”>). A potential advantage to specifying the “kind” of optional
|
By
Kris.re <Kris.re@...>
·
#1253
·
|
|
Re: Markup proposal
<license identifier=”SuchAndSo”>
<title>The Such and So License</title>
<copyright>Copyright © 2015 Foo Bars</copyright>
<body>License text ….</body>
<footer>How to apply this
|
<license identifier=”SuchAndSo”>
<title>The Such and So License</title>
<copyright>Copyright © 2015 Foo Bars</copyright>
<body>License text ….</body>
<footer>How to apply this
|
By
Sam Ellis
·
#1252
·
|
|
Re: meeting minutes
Hi Jilayne, Legal Team,
I think the UberConference 10 people limit needed more emphasis in the meeting minutes, so I gave it a bullet of its own in the "next steps" section.
Regards,
Dennis
|
Hi Jilayne, Legal Team,
I think the UberConference 10 people limit needed more emphasis in the meeting minutes, so I gave it a bullet of its own in the "next steps" section.
Regards,
Dennis
|
By
Dennis Clark
·
#1251
·
|
|
meeting minutes
Great call today, thanks everyone!
There so much good discussion, I had a hard time capturing everything,
so tried to get the high-level areas.
|
Great call today, thanks everyone!
There so much good discussion, I had a hard time capturing everything,
so tried to get the high-level areas.
|
By
J Lovejoy
·
#1250
·
|
|
Re: joint legal-tech call Thursday!!
Hiya Jilayne,
Looks like I've run up against the max participant limit.
Trying to join the conference but can't
kate
|
Hiya Jilayne,
Looks like I've run up against the max participant limit.
Trying to join the conference but can't
kate
|
By
Kate Stewart
·
#1249
·
|
