Jilyane, I'm glad work is proceeding on this.
J Lovejoy wrote today:
> In any case, as Kate has already stated - we were just talking about this
> the other day and thinking through some paths to get to a point of using:
> "GPL-2.0-only" as the short identifier for when one means exactly that.
As
Thanks Bradley. Your point re: other licenses building in a de facto “or
later” clause versus the GPL family of licenses leaving the choice to the
copyright holders is exactly the thing I wanted to confirm and is also (I
think, but need to do more thinking on this) why the GPL family may indeed
J Lovejoy:
> Thanks Bradley. Your point re: other licenses building in a de facto “or
> later”
> clause versus the GPL family of licenses leaving the choice to the copyright
> holders is exactly the thing I wanted to confirm and is also (I think, but
> need
> to do more thinking on this) why the
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 03:15:44PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> J Lovejoy:
> > Thanks Bradley. Your point re: other licenses building in a de
> > facto “or later” clause versus the GPL family of licenses leaving
> > the choice to the copyright holders is exactly the thing I wanted
> > to confi
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:31:59PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 03:15:44PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> > * GPL-2.0+. I *know* that GPL version 2.0, or later, is acceptable.
>
> How could you know this before GPL-4.0 has been written? Maybe I'm
> just not clear on w
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 02:19:14PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> Digging at this “acceptable” idea a bit more, I'm guessing it's
> something like “adapters may share adapted works under”. But the SPDX
> isn't just about copyleft (e.g. it includes CC-BY-ND-*). I think it
> makes more sense to fo
