Re: License List v1.6 - uploaded
Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
Ah! Great point, Philippe, I forgot about that important detail in Sec. 9 of the GPL. In which case, my first scenario - that the oldest GPL/LGPL "or later" license on our list - would apply where no version is indicated. In this case, it seems that our LGPL+ should be taken off the list as its superfluous, agreed? I can't think of a scenario where having this listed separately is of any use, but I could be missing something...toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
Headquarters, Broomfield, Colorado 80021
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: License List v1.6 - uploaded
On 2011-02-02 21:21, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
One remaining thing that Debian caught hereimho we should have support for both GPL and LGPL there.
Note that I think that the + there is misleading. its means "or later"
elsewhere and here it means "any version". I would rather go with GPL
and LGPL than GPL+ and LGPL+
See comment below.
Seems to me this scenario would essentially be the same as the oldest
In this situation, the SPDX file creator couldI would disagree. The GPL and LGPL are very clear there:
In the GPL 2.0 for instance:
"9. [...] If the Program does not specify a version number of this
License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
There is no determination of facts that can be done. There is a choice.
The earliest copyright would not be a relevant fact but rather your
philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com
Spdx mailing list