Re: GPL vX or later issue


dmg
 

I should be more explicit.

I think we are combining two issues into one and that yields some confusion.

Let us assume "GPLv2 or any newer version"

From a practical interpretation point of view, the user is allowed to
choose one license or another, and it is not different than any other
disjunction.

But from a modeling point of view, I see the statement "any newer
version of the license" as a licensing statement
that gets conjuncted to the GPL. In other words, the license is the
concatenation of the clauses of the GPL plus the "any newer version of
the license".

gplv2+ => (GPL and "the relicense with any newer license")

The trilicense, in the other hand, is:

(MPL1.1 or GPL v2+ or LGPL v2.1+) and (the ability to drop any two
licenses from the file--relicense)

I know it does not sound practical, but one one has to logical
assertions on the licenses, it makes senses.

--dmg

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM, dmg <dmg@...> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Michael J Herzog <mjherzog@...> wrote:
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".
Don't confuse a conjunction of terms with a disjunction. GPLv2 and
"ANY later version" is a conjunction of
licensing terms, while 'MPL1.1 or LGPL 2.1' is a disjunction.


--
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org
--
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org

Join spdx@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.