On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Gary wrote:
> > > > Will that be:
> > > >
> > > > a. GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only
> > >
> > > The "ONLY" would be an operator, so I'd expect to see: (GPL-2.0
> > > ONLY OR GPL-3.0 ONLY)
> >
> > That's certainly possible as well, and it would be easier to
Gary @ sourceauditor.com:
> Since "-" is an allowed character for a license ID, it would be more
> challenging to write a parser for the "-only" operator since we would have to
> determine if the "-" is part of the ID or is part of the operator. BTW "+"
> is not
> allowed in the license ID and
> > > Will that be:
> > >
> > > a. GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only
> >
> > The "ONLY" would be an operator, so I'd expect to see:
> > (GPL-2.0 ONLY OR GPL-3.0 ONLY)
>
> That's certainly possible as well, and it would be easier to parse with the
> space. But you could also have an ‘-only’ operator
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 06:00:22PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> W. Trevor King:
> > Is this proposal different from [1]? The only think I can see is that the
> > old
> > “GPL-2.0 by itself is unclear” issue is now being explicitly embraced
> > (while [1]
> > listed it as a potential issue).
W. Trevor King:
> Is this proposal different from [1]? The only think I can see is that the old
> “GPL-2.0 by itself is unclear” issue is now being explicitly embraced (while
> [1]
> listed it as a potential issue).
>
> Also, do we have a preferred phrasing for a grant like:
>
> This program
