toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I strongly agree that we need to clearly distinguish between "GPL v2" and "GPL v2 or Later" and that both should be in the primary license list, although we may also want to keep more precise semantics about versions in the background. I suppose that this case could be construed as a type of Dual License such as "MPL 1.1 or LGPL 2.1" - e.g. "GPL v2 or GPL Later".
Michael J. Herzog
+1 650 380 0680 | mjherzog_at_nexB.com
nexB [Open by Design] http://www.nexb.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including attachments) may contain information that is proprietary or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for its delivery to the intended recipient, do not copy or distribute it. Please permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments, and notify us immediately at (650) 380-0680.
On 11/9/2010 10:28 AM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
I think that this approach will create confusion. First, I estimate that 99.9% of all GPL licenses are version or later, so most users of SPDX will assume that GPLv2 is GPLv2 or later. Unless we can make this very clear, it will be very confusing. I am open to other ways of solving this problem. Second, I think that this distinction is very important now and will increase in importance as GPLv3 becomes more important and some GPLv2 and later programs are forked to GPLv3.
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:17 AM
To: Peter Williams; spdx@...
Subject: RE: GPL vX or later issue
I would agree with Peter's assessment below. To be clear, my
interpretation of this would be that this would remove the various "or
later" instances from the actual license list and then that option would
be handled elsewhere.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
This is an easy update to make and I was hoping to upload a new license
list version with various updates this week, just prior to Friday's
* How do we want to handle LGPL/GPL "vXor later" versus LGPL/GPLvX?
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
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.
Spdx mailing list
</PRE><font face="Arial" size="2" color="#008000">Please consider the environment before printing this email.</font>
<font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#808080">
The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@.... Thank you.
Spdx mailing list