On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:51 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:10:02AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote:
>> Just a reminder to all: when someone places a copy of the GPL,
>> version 2 alongside source code files this does not make the
>> licensing ambiguous; clearly there is a valid lic
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:51:27PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> [2]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-November/002317.html
> Subject: Re: only/or later and the goals of SPDX
> Date:
> Message-ID: <20171109195414.ga11...@valgrind.us>
> …
> [5]:
> Subject: Re:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:10:02AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Just a reminder to all: when someone places a copy of the GPL,
> version 2 alongside source code files this does not make the
> licensing ambiguous; clearly there is a valid license…
>
> Any scenario you could interpret, we have a way to
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:43:46PM +, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> W. Trevor King:
> > > ? = “unclear version” - this will be a new modifier to indicate
> > > there is a lack of clarity as to the license version regarding
> > > if any version, or later, or only applies, e.g., I found the
> > > tex
W. Trevor King:
> > ? = “unclear version” - this will be a new modifier to indicate there
> > is a lack of clarity as to the license version regarding if any
> > version, or later, or only applies, e.g., I found the text of GPLv2,
> > but I’m not sure if it’s “only “ or “or later” because there is
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:49:46PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Kate and I have discussed our last proposal (which was summarized
> here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal)
> with Richard Stallman and John Sullivan as to concerns the FSF, as
> steward of the GNU licenses, ha
