On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 5:08 PM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dne 22. 08. 23 v 22:55 Richard Fontana napsal(a): > > The use of `+` is documented at > > https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/ > > (there's probably a more recent version) > > > > <excerpt> > > D.3 Simple license expressions > > > > A simple <license-expression> is composed one of the following: > > > > An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier. For example: CDDL-1.0 > > An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary "+" operator > > suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later > > version. For example: CDDL-1.0+ > > An SPDX user defined license reference: > > ["DocumentRef-"1*(idstring)":"]"LicenseRef-"1*(idstring) > > </excerpt> > > > > I believe CDDL-1.0 is like MPL-2.0 in having a built-in "later versions" clause. > > Wow, this is new to me. > > Do we want to have generally accepted? Or each case of + license needs to be evaluated separately? I think we can document a general policy that if a license `foo` is allowed in Fedora, `foo+` is also allowed. We are only treating the *GPL family differently because of SPDX's (possibly unfortunate) decision to do the same. When I said things like "Apache License 2.0 or any later version" are quite rare, that was an understatement. "Extremely uncommon" would be more accurate. Richard _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
