Hi Bob, Scott, Jilayne, Armijn,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program
Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
This is the way I read it as well. However I don't know why they wouldn't just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your option) any later version..." which seems completely unnecessary and forces you into effectively dealing with a non-standard license in SPDX.
We (as in Ninka) decided to consider this a (GPLv2 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause). It can also be considered: (GPLv2 | GPLv3 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause) from a practical point of view
that would simplify analysis. It is not a GPLv2+ or (GPLv2| GPLv3+)
since the upgrade path is different (in the former one the KDE
foundation decides the upgrade path, in the latter the FSF).
--dmg
My 2 cents.
-Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:44 AM
To: Gobeille, Robert; spdx@...
Subject: Re: license name question
This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later.
THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!)
As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is reserving
the
right to approve future versions of the GPL for use as the license for
this
code, which seems different to me than an exception. I understand it
to be
saying - 'if there's a GPL v4, we want the chance to check that out and
accept or not accecpt it instead of preemptively saying we'll accept a
license before it has even been written.' Makes sense and seems
reasonable,
actually.
I guess I would think of this as different than an exception, since
usually
an exception usually adds or modifies the terms of the original
license,
which I suppose this does in a way, but in a different way than we
usually
think of?
Jilayne
On 5/25/11 9:34 AM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:
I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE
exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the
name would
be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the
protocol?
GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???
Here is the code license notice:
/**********************************************************************
*******
***********
* Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...>
*
* (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...>
*
*
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it
under *
* the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free
Software *
* Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
version 3
or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its
successor
approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined
in
Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license.
*
*
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT
ANY *
* WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS
FOR A *
* PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more
details.
*
*
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along
with *
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*
***********************************************************************
*******
**********/
Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
(http://fossology.org)
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...
720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com
OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
--
--dmg
---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org
