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 not see any reason why a +
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
> are the plain default GPL ter
ject: Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
>
> 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 "
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Philippe Ombredanne
>wrote:
David:
> Schuberth, Sebastian wrote:
I think you are misquoted my reply for being from Sebastian.
> The issue is how the software is licensed, not what the text of the GPL
> (
ay, November 02, 2015 1:10 PM
To: Wheeler, David A
Cc: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Philippe Ombredanne
>wrote:
David
>> 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 s
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 "license
expression". It's a subtle point.
The purpose of a "license identifier" is
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
Hi Philippe,
> This + is a suffix and not a freestanding character, right?
> So "GPL-2.0+" is valid but "GPL-2.0+" would not be valid?
[Gary]
[Gary] My interpretation of the spec "GPL-2.0+" and "GPL-2.0+" are both
syntactically valid (as well as MIT+, LicenseRef-21+ and any other listed
age-
> From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwhee...@ida.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 12:12 PM
> To: Philippe Ombredanne; Gary O'Neall
> Cc: spdx-t...@lists.spdx.org; SPDX-legal
> Subject: RE: Is "+" a valid character of a LicenseRef idstring?
>
> Philippe Ombre
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Tom Incorvia
wrote:
> So we're all on the same page in this discussion: are you are
> referring to this section of the GPL-2.0 license:
>
> ==
> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
> specifies a version number o
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
> valid (as well as MIT+, Li
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 "license
> expression".
Philippe Ombredanne:
> I am not confusing these at all. The gist of what I am saying is that the
> plus is a legacy that should not be there. It does not make sense to add to
> the large majority of GPL in the wild a + just to deal with a few exceptions
> that do not allow other versions. Except
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 2010.
> This would ha
Philippe Ombredanne:
> The focus is not only on the GPL: well over 25% of the SPDX licenses DO HAVE
> a "this or later version" clause
> In the grand scheme of things, "only" and "or later" are minute
> technicalities that the large majority of software users do not care for. The
> licenses
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> Philippe Ombredanne:
>
> > But SPDX is likely stuck with this inconsistent legacy and yes this is
> hard to escape without creating more mess. It does not mean that we cannot
> try to clarify and improve things.
>
> Sure, but I think "GPL-
17 matches
Mail list logo
