spdx@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

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

By Tom Incorvia · #190 ·

GPLv3 Variants

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

By Mark Radcliffe · #189 ·

Re: License List spreadsheet v1.1

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

By Tom Incorvia · #188 ·

Agenda for License Review Meeting

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

By Kim Weins · #187 ·

Re: Reminder: SPDX License Review Meeting Friday - Time 11-12 ET

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,

By Kim Weins · #186 ·

Reminder: SPDX License Review Meeting Friday

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

By Kim Weins · #185 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By dmg · #184 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Peter Williams <peter.williams@...> · #183 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Bruno Cornec <Bruno.Cornec@...> · #182 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Don Armstrong · #181 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...> · #180 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Bruno Cornec <Bruno.Cornec@...> · #179 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Bruno Cornec <Bruno.Cornec@...> · #178 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Peter Williams <peter.williams@...> · #177 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Kim Weins · #176 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By dmg · #175 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

<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

By Richard Fontana · #174 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Peter Williams <peter.williams@...> · #173 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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.

By dmg · #172 ·

Re: GPL vX or later issue

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

By Peter Williams <peter.williams@...> · #170 ·

1501 - 1520 of 1690

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms