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

Exactly. However, i don't think this requires construing. The two seem very much the same to me. Peter Williams www.openlogic.com

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.

I think we have a slight mis-match it terms. There is not even one GPL license that is "version or later". Each version of GPL is that version, and no other version, of GPL. " A lot of content is

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

Hi DMG, I was off traveling a bit, so if I may have missed some interim conversations -- hopefully I am addressing the same topic that you are. I don't see how the conjunction of 2 licenses will

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

This again, could be handled as a conjunction of the license plus the clause that allows the upgrade. Licenses for a given file: GPLv2 _AND_ Any_NEWER_VERSION or something like thatl --dmg --

The list will grow n^2 to the number of GPL licenses. Why not consider the exception as a conjunction of two licenses for the purpose of the spec? One the GPL, and the other the exception. This will

I would agree with Peter's assessment below. To be clear, my interpretation of this would be that this would remove the various "or later" instances from the actual license list and then that option

So, for purposes of the license list - am I to add a new line item for each GPL + exception? If so, does anyone want to help me generate a list of the various commonly used exceptions with some

They are now up on the website. http://www.spdx.org/wiki/20101104-minutes L. Philip Odence Vice President of Business Development Black Duck Software, inc. 265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Phone: