David, Vladimir: On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:34 PM David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@ida.org> wrote: > > From: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> > > It looks like you are inclined that "SDPX should have some definition of > > or-later". That is good to know. > I think standards should be as clear and precise as possible, so sure. > 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? > > None of those match the proposed pattern, so by my proposal none of them have > a version number. I'm fine with that. The Spencer-86 can be reworked that > as Spencer-86.0. If someone wants something different propose that instead. > > > 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? > > Yes, as defined by the proposed regex, and I did that on purpose. > This is all just a discussion right now, of course. Perhaps people think a > different pattern would be better. But "1.3c" is a plausible version number.
What looks as a version number in an SPDX license identifier is NOT like a software version number. This is purely indicative and is not something that is specified to have any meaning. Actually nothing in an identifier has any specified meaning at all. It just happens that as a convenience, folks like to put version numbers in licenses and these have been carried on in the license identifiers. You could have a license id of 234dssds-23.3475 and that would be OK. So please do not start to try to infer versions, relations and other things based on identifier strings, that's a dangerous slope These are opaque strings used as "natural keys" nothing more than that. Instead, you may want and could track relations between licenses, as attributes of a license. For instance you could track that EPL-1.0 next version is EPL-2.0 and so on. But this becomes an explicitly stored relationship and not something vaguely inferred from opaque ids. And in the same way, the -only and -or-later suffixes applied to some ids have no meaning whatsoever of their own. They just happen to be handy IDs for licenses. They do not need to be specified either: again identifier are opaque ids. -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3735): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/3735 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
