On Wed, May 25 2022 at 09:57, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 11:22:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> This paragraph is not really understandable for Joe Developer.
>>
>> copyleft-next-0.3.1 is explicitly compatible with GPLv2 (or later) and
>> can therefore be used for kernel code. Though the best and recommended
>> practice is to express this in the SPDX license identifier by
>> licensing the code under both licenses expressed by the OR operator.
>>
>> Hmm?
>
> Let me try clarifying this further, how about:
>
> copyleft-next-0.3.1 is explicitly compatible with GPLv2 (or later) and
> can therefore be used for kernel code. Despite this, if you use
> copyleft-next-0.3.1 on Linux, the recommended practice is to express
> dual licensing with GPL using in the SPDX license identifiers by
> using by the OR operator.
'using in the ..' ?
and
'by using by' is off by one 'by' :)
I'm not seeing how that clarifies stuff further. I might be biased, but
the version I suggested is crystal clear.
>> > + To use the copyleft-next-0.3.1 license put the following SPDX tag/value
>> > + pair into a comment according to the placement guidelines in the
>> > + licensing rules documentation:
>> > + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
>> > + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR copyleft-next 0.3.1
>> > + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
>> > + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
>>
>> Please don't propagate the GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ tags. They are
>> outdated (still valid) in the SPDX spec, which reminds me that I should
>> update the relevant documentation...
>
> OK thanks for the recommendation, I'll leave it at:
>
> + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
please. See my previous reply quoted above.
> + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
Thanks,
tglx
