Vladimir> How about Artistic-1.0 vs Artistic-1.0-cl8 vs Artistic-1.0-Perl vs Artistic-2.0? David>Those are not SPDX license identifiers. If they were, then I would say the first set are not SPDX license identifiers > Here you go, sir: https://spdx.org/licenses/ > I've quoted a subset of non-deprecated SPDX identifiers.
Good show, I totally forgot about those. Okay, so my previous proposal won't work exactly, but I think it can be rescued with a little tweaking. Maybe we should claim that a version number is the first match after a "-" to some pattern like this regex: [1-9]+\.[0-9][^-]* If they have "-..." afterwards (other than "-only" or "-or-later") that would be considered part of the license name as well (e.g., license name second part). Under these modified rules the version number has to start with a number, a period, and number, so these would NOT match a version number: BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License-2014 And the lists you gave above WOULD have a version number. Vladimir> How about LPPL-1.0 vs LPPL-1.2 vs LPPL-1.3a vs LPPL-1.3c? David>The second set is easily ordered by natural sort, and is ordered in exactly the order shown. > Are you sure LPPL-1.3c is "a later version of " LPPL-1.3a? We can *require* that its SPDX identifier have a specific answer - I would recommend the answer be "yes". If it's part of the version text, it's a version... if it's a variation, the SPDX id would have to have a "-" before the rest. Basically, if it's not part of the version "number", then the SPDX id would have to have a "-" before the additional text. I think this more-or-less codifies existing practice. > As I said, Artistic-1.0 vs Artistic-1.0-cl8 is not that obvious in terms of > "natural order". David>If it’s really bizarre, a special version or new name could be used. > Your move: what should be the "version" for Artistic-1.0, Artistic-1.0-cl8, > Artistic-1.0-Perl, Artistic-2.0? David>It’s more complex than that, because if some software is a released with a rider that says “only this version may be used” ? If they use "the canonical version of CC-BY-SA 2.0", then they do not override the text. > If they somehow override the text to allow CC-BY-SA-2.0 **only** (I've no > idea if that is possible but let's pretend it is), then they can't really use > SPDX identifier of CC-BY-SA-2.0 because they are effectively using a > different license (which is more like "only CC-BY-SA-2.0"). It's pretty common to say, "We only allow this version of the license", regardless of what the license text says. A number of lawyers have an understandable allergy to signing agreements they have not reviewed. Since it's a common case, we should have a way to record that common case. --- David A. Wheeler -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3731): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/3731 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/32049933/21656 Group Owner: spdx-tech+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
