David>Okay, so my previous proposal won't work exactly, but I think it can be rescued with a little tweaking
It looks like you are inclined that "SDPX should have some definition of or-later". That is good to know. David>Maybe we should claim that a version number is the first match How about Spencer-86, Spencer-94, Spencer-99? How about Unicode-DFS-2015, Unicode-DFS-2016? W3C-19980720, W3C-20150513, W3C? David>Maybe we should claim that a version number is the first match after a "-" to some pattern like this regex: How that classifies 1.3a vs 1.3c? Is "c" a part of the license name? David>We can *require* that its SPDX identifier have a specific answer - I would recommend the answer be "yes". Is "MIT a later version of GPL-2.0"? Yes. :) David> regardless of what the license text says I'm sure one should not specify "Bundle-License: CC-BY-SA-2.0" and overrule it for "just 2.0" at the same time. Either the author uses "the canonical SPDX variation of CC-BB-SA-2.0" or the license is different (== its SPDX expression must be different from CC-BB-SA-2.0). It might be SPDX standard should allow "-only" optional modifier for all license ids (e.g. CC-BY-SA-2.0-only), however that is a bit different story. Vladimir -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3732): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/3732 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
