add explanatory text re: -only and -or-later #797
Conversation
add explanatory text re: -only and -or-later delineation in standard license header (versus default text in full copy of license). proposed solution to #617
|
@tieguy @theopenchainproject - want to have a look here? |
|
if people think this explains thing well enough, then will add to other GNU licenses |
|
have reached out to FSF to get their review as well |
src/GPL-2.0-only.xml
Outdated
| This license was released: June 1991 This refers to when this | ||
| GPL 2.0 only is being used (as opposed to GPLv2 or later). | ||
| This license was released: June 1991. This license identifier refers to when | ||
| GPL-2.0-only is being used as opposed to GPL-2.0-or-later. The option to use either that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can I suggest replacing "The option to use... " with "The license header of individual files will indicate which of 'only' or 'later' applies to that particular file." I think that's the same intent, but if not, might want to clarify in a different way?
Looks like a good solution to me. |
|
thanks @tieguy and @shanecoughlan - I've gotten some feedback from Donald at FSF as well, so just need to nail down that with him and make some edits here... hopefully soon! |
update to Notes as per feedback from FSF
update Notes with feedback from FSF
|
Hi @jlovejoy, this looks good to me! Does this incorporate the changes to the notes that you were incorporating based on your discussion with FSF? If so, I'm glad to go ahead and push the merge button. |
src/GPL-2.0-only.xml
Outdated
| (i.e., GPL-2.0 or some later version such as GPL 3, a possible future GPL 4, | ||
| and so on). The license notice (usually at the head of the file) states which of these | ||
| applies to the code in the file. | ||
| <p>The example in the exhibit to the license shows the license notice for the "or later" approach.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume there is no way for FSF to issue/approve an example that does not show the or-later approach?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably not before we freeze the release for 3.5... which we're hoping to do today / Monday. =) But I haven't spoken with them, so maybe @jlovejoy can weigh in here.
update notes to further tighten up language
update notes to be more concise
|
@tieguy - note, on the SPDX license pages, we show the correct standard header (in terms of reflecting the only or or-later option) but the standard license text exhibit has the or-later language. This is what was confusing people. I've now updated the language again to tighten up a bit and call out the above fact more explicitly. I've also added the rest of the licenses this applies to. I think we can go with this. Also note: AGPL-1.0 and LGPL-3.0 don't have this issue, as they don't include the license notice exhibit |
add explanatory text re: -only and -or-later delineation in standard license header (versus default text in full copy of license). proposed solution to #617