Re: GPL vX or later issue
Michael J Herzog <mjherzog@...>
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".toggle quoted message Show quoted text
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.