On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Schuberth, Sebastian <sebastian.schube...@here.com> 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 + would not be allowed in a reference, and there is no ambiguity since the + always something attached to an id or ref string, not some free standing symbol. But this raises a larger question which I am sure has been debated in the past: 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 terms. If I do nothing special, the GPL version I picked or any other later version can apply. I need to go the extra mile to state that only this version applies and no other version. I need to add a specific statement to that effect. Actually if I only state my code is GPL-licensed without indicating a version the GPL says that a recipient can pick *any current or future version* So to me it is an exception to the GPL-2.0 (or 3) to disallow the use of other versions. A fairly common exception because it is used in the kernel and that likely led to this flawed but widely spread approach to be adopted by Linux distros. And later adopted by SPDX. Essentially GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ mean exactly the same the thing. The plus is redundant and confusing. To be truly correct, every single occurrence of the GPL that does not disallow later versions should have a plus. It does not make sense to treat the non-default exceptional case as the default. Fixing this in SPDX would mean to deprecate + entirely, and add an exception that would disallow other or future versions such as "only". Or change the meaning and the text of the GPL-2.0 to be some notice that states this means the GPL-2.0 applies only and no other version. And replace the GPL-2.0 id by a GPL-2.0+ id where the text is the actual full text. Any thoughts? PS: I am cross-posting to the legal list as this is ultimately there that it should be resolved IMHO. -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
