Re: [directory-discuss] Linking licenses to SPDX

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

Oh I see! ;)

Now I see what you mean, thank you very much for clarifying this! :D

"W. Trevor King" <address@hidden> writes:

> 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).
>
> Cheers,
> Trevor
>
> [1]: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60
> [2]: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/37
> [3]: https://spdx.org/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/spdx-2.0.pdf#page=9
> [4]: https://spdx.org/sites//cpstandard/files/pages/files/spdx-1.0.pdf#page=35
> [5]: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.thzxydww9yu7
> [6]: https://github.com/wking/fsf-api