Hi David, I think your points are good ones, but it seems to me they go to the separate issues of "file:detected license" and "package:concluded license."
The clarity of the spec argument is aimed at making the "file:detected license" case more explicit, and if it leaves tools with NOASSERTION for "package:concluded license," then I think that's OK, no? Best, Brad -- Brad Edmondson, *Esq.* 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Wheeler, David A <dwhee...@ida.org> wrote: > J Lovejoy: > > > Do NOT add a identifier or operator, etc. for the > found-license-text-only scenario where you don’t know if the intent of the > copyright holder was “only or “or later” and are thus left to interpret > clause > > I disagree, sorry. > > > - we don’t need to solve this right now and we can always add this > option later > > - without adding a third option, we are in the same position we have > been in since the birth of the SPDX License List. incremental changes have > always been our go-to strategy; let’s take a first step to clarify the > current identifiers in a way that the FSF can get behind. If, for a later > release, we think we need this third option, then we can discuss that > further once we have some time under our belts with this change. > > No, this is the *reason* that there's a problem. The *reason* that > "GPL-2.0" isn't working is, in part, because it overloads two notions. > "GPL-2.0" is supposed to mean "Only 2.0" (per the spec) . But tools only > know "I saw a GPL-2.0 license", so how can they represent that > information? The obvious way is "GPL-2.0", so that same identifier can > mean "2.0 at least, and I don't know if there are other versions allowed". > That's not good. > > If we wait to "add this option later", "GPL-2.0-only" will probably have > morphed in *practice* into "GPL-2.0 at least, and I don't know if it's the > only version". So while everyone can congratulate themselves about the > clarity of the spec, very soon it will predictably be *unclear* in > practice. If we want to be able to express "exactly this version", we also > need to be able to represent "at least this version". > > --- David A. Wheeler > > _______________________________________________ > Spdx-legal mailing list > Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org > https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal >
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
