Peter Williams <peter.williams@...>
On 11/4/10 11:15 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
*Outstanding Issues/Questions:*We could just have a separate license for GPL+amendment for all the common exceptions. This fits the current license model pretty well. However, it means that an uncommon set of amendments would require a custom license declaration in SPDX file.
Another approach that might be to have a LicenseAmendment concept and allow a "composite" license to be defined as a base license plus a set of amendments. This feasible but would require a bit of work in the technical working group to nail down the specifics.
* How do we want to handle LGPL/GPL “vXor later” versus LGPL/GPL vX?I think this should not be handled at license level. There is no such license as "GPL v2 or later". Rather, content is licensed under the disjunctive set of all GPL licenses with a version greater than or equal to 2.
If licenses expressed their version relationships using dc:isVersionOf and dc:replaces we could leverage that information. Using the version relationships we could define a version based disjunctive license set. This set would specify the minimum acceptable version of the license, e.g. GPLv2. A license would be considered to be part of such a set if it "replaces" and "isVersionOf", either directly or indirectly, the minimum acceptable version.
* Licenses with an alternative name or an associated project inWe could quite easily support an arbitrary number of name for any particular license. Perhaps that would be easier than trying to settle on just one name for these licenses.