On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
[...]
>> You say:
>> GPL-2.0 ==> implies GPL 2.0 only
>> GPL-2.0+ ==> implies GPL 2.0 or later
> That's not just what I say. That's what the spec says, and has
> clearly stated since circa
Schuberth, Sebastian wrote:
> Using a + is a whart. Licenses that allow the use of other versions do so
> explicitly in their texts, the GPL being the most prominent but the EPL comes
> to mind too. So there is no such thing as GPL-2.0 or another version: these
Hi Philippe,
> -Original Message-
> From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-
> boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 1:57 AM
> To: Schuberth, Sebastian; spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal
> Subject: Re: Is "+" a
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Schuberth, Sebastian wrote:
>>> when debugging an issue in the spdx-tools verifier, I noticed the
>>> SPDX 2.0 specs seem to be inconsistent on whether "+" is a
>>> valid character in a LicenseRef's idstring, like in LicenseRef-[idstring].
> I wrote:
>> I not
I said:
> In particular, "GPL-2.0" is a license identifier, and "GPL-2.0+" is *NOT*.
Just a few nitpicks on my previous email:
* I realize that "GPL-2.0+" is in the list of "deprecated" license identifiers,
so in some sense there is a "GPL-2.0+" license identifier. But I think it's
clear what
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Schuberth, Sebastian
wrote:
> when debugging an issue in the spdx-tools verifier, I noticed the SPDX 2.0
> specs seem to be inconsistent on whether "+" is a valid character in a
> LicenseRef's idstring, like in
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> Philippe Ombredanne:
>> This + is a suffix and not a freestanding character, right?
>> Then again we would be better off to get rid of the plus entirely!
> You may be confusing a SPDX "license identifier" and a SPDX
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Gary O'Neall wrote:
>> This + is a suffix and not a freestanding character, right?
>> So "GPL-2.0+" is valid but "GPL-2.0+" would not be valid?
> My interpretation of the spec "GPL-2.0+" and "GPL-2.0+" are both
> syntactically
>