On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:47:25AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > In > the last week, I've talked to people who Conclude them as GPLvN-only. I've > also talked to people who Conclude them as GPLvN-or-later, where N is the > version of the GPL that is put in the package directory. In other words, > the Conclusions are all over the map for these rather simple Declarations. > > So, my meta-conclusion is clear: the proposed solution of > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/only-operator-proposal#Proposed_Solution:_add_only_operator > probably will work fine [0], but only for the LicenseConcluded field. (In > other words, I can't imagine any *Conclusions* that aren't covered by that > group.) > > But, for *Declarations*, SPDX clearly needs some other identifier, which > would usually only be used as Declared licenses. Such an identifier would > allow SPDX files (a) to better include all the information that was > available to best inform those who look at the Declared license, (b) > properly inform those making Conclusions, and (c) avoid the current > situation that causes Conclusions about GPL licensing to appear in as a > Declared license. > > I don't know what such an identifier should be, but it is *not* > GPLvN-or-later; it's not GPLvN-only; it's not GPLvN+. It's something else.
Hi Bradley, I agree with this, though I don't have any specific suggestions. The existing and proposed set of identifiers don't seem to adequately capture enough nuances of how GPL licensing is actually indicated in code. Also I think it should be recognized that determination of a 'Declared' license is actually an exercise in creativity and judgment, sometimes as much as the determination of a 'Concluded' license. Richard _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
