Adding to the answer on timing — we would expect that the version due around the end of the year would be a “release candidate”. It would not go “final” till after Beta testing. However,

Martin, regarding your PPS We are aiming for an end of the year version with more or less frozen features. It won't be released until it's been through some more extensive testing, but we don't expect

- >> Which is only true at that moment of time. If/when GPLv4 is available, >> you would miss that one. So it's important to keep the fact that the >> author stated that it's GPLv2+ to cover this. >>

Hi Mark, I agree that there could be many variants. Since we will not be able to interpret the additional terms in any clean fashion (including a certainty that an included term is or is not a

I think that we need to take into account the fact that GPLv3 permits six "additional terms" (see below). Since they you could have many variants, perhaps the best approach is to have a category for

Originally sent 2010-Oct-21. For discussion at today’s License Review Meeting, agenda item, “Python Licenses”. Tom Tom Incorvia tom.incorvia@... Direct: (512) 340-1336 Mobile: (408) 499

GPL “or later” issue - is there consensus on list around leaving as is in terms of listing “GPL v2 only” separately from “GPL v2 or later” with differentiation showing in header

Hi guys, for some reason mywhen I sent the reminder from my calendar, it didn't show time zone. The meeting is 11ET, 9MT, 8PT, etc Kim Kim Weins | Senior Vice President,

Reminder -- for people that want to attend ------ Original Appointment From: kim.weins@... When: 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM November 12, 2010 Subject: License Review Meeting Location: Dial in

you are misreading my clause. When I say "any newer version" it means I give you the choice to use any newer version. Just that. The license is the concatenation of the GPL license plus this

Yeah, it does have the issue that the members of the set change over time. However, at any particular moment in time (i.e. any time you are doing anything with an SPDX file) it can be treat as a

Jilayne Lovejoy said on Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 07:53:12PM -0700: Which is only true at that moment of time. If/when GPLv4 is available, you would miss that one. So it's important to keep the fact that

No, it's not. GPLv3 and v2 conflict with each other, so a license which is the conjunction of both v2 and v3 is nonsensical. There's a reason why the full language of the recommended licensing clause

Hi All, I think I created a bit of a mess with what was intended to be a simple question, but sort of opened a can or worms! Let me try to re-center a bit, if possible… I think it can be said

Radcliffe, Mark said on Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:28:17AM -0800: I can confirm I'm the maintainer of a project which is mostly GPLv2 (and not or later). So that does exist and should be differentiated

Peter Williams said on Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:25:40PM -0700: I think we should not re-invent the wheel here. In .spec files for RPMs packages, there is already tags for GPLv2 and GPLv2+. Why not

If we did have a "GPLv2OrLaterVersion" license what would its license text be? Peter www.openlogic.com

I think that we need to treat the v2 and later as a separate license in the list. Although it would be nice from a purely technical point of view to factor that into a conjunction or disjunction of

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

<delurking> Actually, it is not inherently clear whether "GPLv2 or any later version" licensing is meant to be conjunctive or disjunctive, but it is my sense that the majority view in the open