[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [directory-discuss] Linking licenses to SPDX

From: W. Trevor King
Subject: Re: [directory-discuss] Linking licenses to SPDX
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:53:10 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:24:18AM -0200, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> One thing that I noticed 6 months ago when I investigated SPDX
> notation, is that, at *that time*, they didn't provide all the
> notations for the most used free/libre software license and it's
> variants, that is: GNU AGPL/GPL. If I recall correctly, the
> notations missing are: for versions 2+, 3+ and combinations of both
> additional terms and exception variants of 2+ and 3+. In spite of
> this, SPDX has notations for versions 2 and 3 ("only").

De-lurking (hi everyone ;) to clarify this, but the SPDX does support
“or later” grants via a ‘+’ operator and additional terms and
exceptions via a ‘WITH’ operator.  For example, you can have content
under the GPL-2.0+, which is “The GPL-2.0 license or (at your option)
and later version”.  The current docs for this aren't particularly
pretty [1], but I have work in flight to polish them up [2].  And the
‘+’ operator dates back to version 2.0 (2015), which introduced
license expressions [3].  Before that (since 1.0) there were
short-identifiers for GPL-2.0+ and similar [4].  Those identifiers are
still around (although they are now deprecated in favor of the WITH
forms) [5].

Also potentially interesting for this thread is my very recent attempt
to provide FSF license metadata via an API [6].  I'd really like to
see the FSF provide that metadata via a canonical API (similar to the
one I've mocked up or not, as they see fit).



This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (
For more information, see

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]