On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:37:50PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > Deprecate the "GPL-2.0" identifier and add the word “only” for GPL > version 2 only, e.g., "GPL-2.0-only" > - this should not be problematic as it does not change the meaning > of the identifier. GPL-2.0 has meant ‘version 2 only’ since the > SPDX License List was born. We are simply adding explicit language > for the identifier. No backwards compatibility issues in terms of > the meaning. > - we can do a “warning” for people using the deprecated identifier > for a period before “GPL-2.0" becomes invalid to give people a > chance to update. This will also encourage people who have been > sloppy to fix their sloppiness.
I think this “deprecation with an eventual removal” approach is part of all of the proposals, and is not unique to the “coin new per-version license identifiers” approach. > Keep the + modifier in the license expression language > - this allows use of + with other licenses as always, no change, no > backwards compatibility I am strongly against having both a ‘GPL-2.0+’ license ID and a ‘+’ operator. I think committing to a ‘GPL-2.0+’ license ID is an unfortunate but tenable postition. And if we go that way, I'd rather remove the ‘+’ operator entirely. I'd be ok with ‘GPL-2.0-or-later’ while preserving the ‘+’ operator for other licenses. But if a ‘+’ operator is deemed not good enough for the GPL, which licenses would it be good enough for? This feels like “we don't know when we'd recommend ‘+’, but didn't have the heart to kill it”. Personally, I think the ‘+’ operator *is* good enough for the GPL, but if that view was universal we wouldn't be adding an or-later license ID. If we cannot build a consensus around using ‘+’ for the GPL, I'd rather drop it entirely. My concern with coining license identifiers for ‘GPL-2.0-or-later’ and similar is the combinatoric increase in license identifiers, and that's more of an aesthetic concern than a technical concern (although there are some technical impacts, e.g. the size of license-list-XML and license-list-data will grow). Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
