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:

Thanks for pointing that out. That agreement must have been reached before i joined the group. I agree that approach makes the most sense. We could make the relationship explicit by defining a

Regarding the GPL / LGPL exceptions -- We formerly decided to treat each combination of license + exception as a separate license since the exception can change the terms materially. For instance GPL

We could just have a separate license for GPL+amendment for all the common exceptions. This fits the current license model pretty well. However, it means that an uncommon set of amendments would

Hi, Okay,I uploaded the v1.2 spreadsheet and accompanying guidelines in a word doc asattachments to a new Wiki page here: http://www.spdx.org/wiki/license-list-v12 Disregardmy previous email

See comments in ALL CAPS below. I will send an email when the latest License List and Guidelines document has been uploaded to the Wiki so everyone can just look at it there. Jilayne

I agree these licenses are a bit redundantseeming and not well differentiated. However, I think when a license hasbeen approved by the OSI, we need to just stick with the license name they use.