THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx
Difference between revisions of "LicenseExpressionFAQ"
(→What is the difference between a License and a License Expression?) |
(→Why was the license expression syntax introduced in the SPDX 2.0 specification?) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == Why was the license | + | == Why was the license expression syntax introduced in the SPDX 2.0 specification? == |
| − | The SPDX 1.x Specification and earlier versions of the License List had a limited ability to represent more complex license situations typically found in practice. Examples of such complexity can be found at: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples . Additionally, earlier versions of the SPDX License List required the addition of multiple yet similar license identifiers in order to capture combinations of versions, the “or later” license genre (i.e. GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+) and the most common exceptions (e.g., GPL-2.0+-with-autoconf-exception or GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception). The SPDX Legal working group identified more than 30 additional distinct exceptions. If one tried to accommodate the many different permutations of the different exceptions with the “or later” cases, the license list would become bloated | + | The SPDX 1.x Specification and earlier versions of the License List had a limited ability to represent more complex license situations typically found in practice. Examples of such complexity can be found at: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples . Additionally, earlier versions of the SPDX License List required the addition of multiple yet similar license identifiers in order to capture combinations of versions, the “or later” license genre (i.e. GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+) and the most common exceptions (e.g., GPL-2.0+-with-autoconf-exception or GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception). The SPDX Legal working group identified more than 30 additional distinct exceptions. If one tried to accommodate the many different permutations of the different exceptions with the “or later” cases, the license list would become unnecessarily bloated. For additional historical background information you can reference: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_Expression_Review_1. |
| − | All in all, the introduction of the WITH and ‘+” operators, and the | + | All in all, the introduction of the WITH and ‘+” operators, and the addition of the new license list exceptions section, we are able to represent more sets of license terms found in practice while simultaneously streamlining the SPDX License List. |
| − | == Why do we need a | + | == Why do we need a license expression syntax when projects are available under a single license? == |
Typically an open source project will start out making their software available under a single open source license but as some projects evolve they may leverage code from other successful projects governed by different licenses. Consequentially many successful projects end up with a diverse collection of files that are available under different licenses. Often programs are built from a diverse collection of files that are available under a composite set of different license terms. The SPDX License Expression language provides a way for one to construct license expressions that more accurately represent the licensing terms are typically found in open source software source code. Also some projects may offer their software under a multi-license choice where a license expression provides a formal way to representing this. | Typically an open source project will start out making their software available under a single open source license but as some projects evolve they may leverage code from other successful projects governed by different licenses. Consequentially many successful projects end up with a diverse collection of files that are available under different licenses. Often programs are built from a diverse collection of files that are available under a composite set of different license terms. The SPDX License Expression language provides a way for one to construct license expressions that more accurately represent the licensing terms are typically found in open source software source code. Also some projects may offer their software under a multi-license choice where a license expression provides a formal way to representing this. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== In the SPDX 2.0 Specification why is GPL-2.0+ no longer a proper license identifier? == | == In the SPDX 2.0 Specification why is GPL-2.0+ no longer a proper license identifier? == | ||
| − | The license identifier “GPL-2.0+” will be depreciated in the updated version of the SPDX License List that accompanies the SPDX 2.0 specification release. The license identifier “GPL-2.0” (without the “+”) is still a valid identifier. After using SPDX in practice it was realized that there are several benefits to treating the “+” as a separate operator. The expression GPL-2.0+ is a valid expression in SPDX 2.0 and has the same semantic meaning as the deprecated license identifier “GPL-2.0+”. The only difference is that the “+” is an operator that stands for “or a later version”. The “+” can now be used with other licenses in addition to the GPL and LGPL (e.g., EPL-1.0+). It reduces license list bloat, that is, we do not need to add every possible license with a “+” for all possible license cases one may encounter. This also applies to license exceptions. By introducing the “+” and “WITH” operators we can more simply and conveniently represent the myriad of special exceptions without needing to clutter the license list with all the different combinations that include the GPL and LGPL and later versions of the license. That is, we wanted to avoid adding the following to the license list: | + | The license identifier “GPL-2.0+” will be depreciated in the updated version of the SPDX License List that accompanies the SPDX 2.0 specification release. The license identifier “GPL-2.0” (without the “+”) is still a valid identifier. After using SPDX in practice it was realized that there are several benefits to treating the “+” as a separate operator. The expression GPL-2.0+ is a valid expression in SPDX 2.0 and has the same semantic meaning as the deprecated license identifier “GPL-2.0+”. The only difference is that the “+” is an operator that stands for “or a later version”. The “+” can now be used with other licenses in addition to the GPL and LGPL (e.g., EPL-1.0+). It reduces license list bloat, that is, we do not need to add every possible license with a “+” for all possible license cases one may encounter. This also applies to license exceptions. By introducing the “+” and “WITH” operators we can more simply and conveniently represent the myriad of special exceptions without needing to clutter the license list with all the different combinations that include the GPL and LGPL and later versions of the license. That is, we wanted to avoid adding the following to the license list: <br> |
| − | + | * GPL-2.0-with-autoconf-exception <br> | |
| − | + | * GPL-2.0+-with-autoconf-exception <br> | |
| − | + | * GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception <br> | |
| − | + | * GPL-3.0+-with-autoconf-exception <br> | |
| − | Now we just need to add autoconf-exception to the SPDX License List as opposed to the above four identifiers. If a new version of the GPL was released (e.g., GPL-4.0) only one license identifier needs to be added as opposed to one for all the potential special | + | Now we just need to add autoconf-exception to the SPDX License List as opposed to the above four identifiers. If a new version of the GPL was released (e.g., GPL-4.0) only one license identifier needs to be added as opposed to one for all the potential special exception combinations (e.g., autoconf, bison, classpath, …) |
== In the SPDX 2.0 Specification why are certain licenses with exception identifiers (e.g. GPL-2.0-with-bison-exception) no longer in the SPDX License List? == | == In the SPDX 2.0 Specification why are certain licenses with exception identifiers (e.g. GPL-2.0-with-bison-exception) no longer in the SPDX License List? == | ||
| − | It was decided to rework the way special expectations will be handled in the . | + | It was decided to rework the way special expectations will be handled in the 2.0 version of the SPDX specification. The SPDX Legal working group identified more than 30 additional distinct exceptions. If one tried to accommodate the many different permutations of the different exceptions with the “or later” cases, the license list would become bloated and unwieldy. The introduction of the WITH operator and a separate list of exception identifiers alleviates the problem. |
== Does a license expression imply any particular legal interpretation? == | == Does a license expression imply any particular legal interpretation? == | ||
| − | No. Although the semantics of the operators describe a relationship between licenses, it is up to the user or distributor of the software to decide how to interpret the dynamics of the relationship of the licenses. For example, the expression GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause describes a relationship where one can choose between two licenses, but it does not imply any specific interpretation of how to choose or the way to interpret the respective licenses. Another example is GPL-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause. The AND operator represents that the code from two different works has been combined (e.g., for example a program is created by combining two different files under two different licenses). It does not specifically imply whether the resulting expression is a derivative work or a collection. The legal determination of whether the two licenses are compatible or how one might interpret the marriage of these licenses is left to the user or distributor of the file or program. It is conceivable that different organizations could come to different legal determinations for the same license expression. This is no different than two organizations having different interpretations of a given license or how to interpret the ramifications of dynamic vs. static linking. | + | No. Although the semantics of the operators describe a physical relationship between licenses, it is up to the user or distributor of the software to decide how to interpret the legal dynamics of the physical relationship of the licenses. For example, the expression GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause describes a relationship where one can choose between two licenses, but it does not imply any specific interpretation of how to choose or the way to interpret the respective licenses. Another example is GPL-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause. The AND operator represents that the code from two different works has been combined via linking or source code embedding (e.g., for example a program is created by combining two different files under two different licenses). It does not specifically imply whether the resulting expression is a derivative work or a collection. The legal determination of whether the two licenses are compatible or how one might interpret the marriage of these licenses is left to the user or distributor of the file or program. It is conceivable that different organizations could come to different legal determinations for the same license expression. This is no different than two organizations having different interpretations of a given license or how to interpret the ramifications of dynamic vs. static linking. |
== What is the difference between a License and a License Expression? == | == What is the difference between a License and a License Expression? == | ||
| − | + | A license represents a single well defined license text such as the GNU Public License or the Apache License which may have different versions made available over time. A license expression can describe the relationship between two or more licenses or license exceptions. A relationship is often created when one mixes source code under two different licenses or one chooses to offer there software under a choice of two or more licenses. | |
== Is the License Expression Syntax Case Sensitive? == | == Is the License Expression Syntax Case Sensitive? == | ||
No. One can use both upper or lower case. | No. One can use both upper or lower case. | ||
Latest revision as of 19:58, 11 December 2014
Contents
- 1 Why was the license expression syntax introduced in the SPDX 2.0 specification?
- 2 Why do we need a license expression syntax when projects are available under a single license?
- 3 Are there examples of different license expressions found in practice?
- 4 In the SPDX 2.0 Specification why is GPL-2.0+ no longer a proper license identifier?
- 5 In the SPDX 2.0 Specification why are certain licenses with exception identifiers (e.g. GPL-2.0-with-bison-exception) no longer in the SPDX License List?
- 6 Does a license expression imply any particular legal interpretation?
- 7 What is the difference between a License and a License Expression?
- 8 Is the License Expression Syntax Case Sensitive?
Why was the license expression syntax introduced in the SPDX 2.0 specification?
The SPDX 1.x Specification and earlier versions of the License List had a limited ability to represent more complex license situations typically found in practice. Examples of such complexity can be found at: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples . Additionally, earlier versions of the SPDX License List required the addition of multiple yet similar license identifiers in order to capture combinations of versions, the “or later” license genre (i.e. GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+) and the most common exceptions (e.g., GPL-2.0+-with-autoconf-exception or GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception). The SPDX Legal working group identified more than 30 additional distinct exceptions. If one tried to accommodate the many different permutations of the different exceptions with the “or later” cases, the license list would become unnecessarily bloated. For additional historical background information you can reference: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_Expression_Review_1. All in all, the introduction of the WITH and ‘+” operators, and the addition of the new license list exceptions section, we are able to represent more sets of license terms found in practice while simultaneously streamlining the SPDX License List.
Why do we need a license expression syntax when projects are available under a single license?
Typically an open source project will start out making their software available under a single open source license but as some projects evolve they may leverage code from other successful projects governed by different licenses. Consequentially many successful projects end up with a diverse collection of files that are available under different licenses. Often programs are built from a diverse collection of files that are available under a composite set of different license terms. The SPDX License Expression language provides a way for one to construct license expressions that more accurately represent the licensing terms are typically found in open source software source code. Also some projects may offer their software under a multi-license choice where a license expression provides a formal way to representing this.
Are there examples of different license expressions found in practice?
Yes, you can find examples here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/FileNoticeExamples
In the SPDX 2.0 Specification why is GPL-2.0+ no longer a proper license identifier?
The license identifier “GPL-2.0+” will be depreciated in the updated version of the SPDX License List that accompanies the SPDX 2.0 specification release. The license identifier “GPL-2.0” (without the “+”) is still a valid identifier. After using SPDX in practice it was realized that there are several benefits to treating the “+” as a separate operator. The expression GPL-2.0+ is a valid expression in SPDX 2.0 and has the same semantic meaning as the deprecated license identifier “GPL-2.0+”. The only difference is that the “+” is an operator that stands for “or a later version”. The “+” can now be used with other licenses in addition to the GPL and LGPL (e.g., EPL-1.0+). It reduces license list bloat, that is, we do not need to add every possible license with a “+” for all possible license cases one may encounter. This also applies to license exceptions. By introducing the “+” and “WITH” operators we can more simply and conveniently represent the myriad of special exceptions without needing to clutter the license list with all the different combinations that include the GPL and LGPL and later versions of the license. That is, we wanted to avoid adding the following to the license list:
- GPL-2.0-with-autoconf-exception
- GPL-2.0+-with-autoconf-exception
- GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception
- GPL-3.0+-with-autoconf-exception
Now we just need to add autoconf-exception to the SPDX License List as opposed to the above four identifiers. If a new version of the GPL was released (e.g., GPL-4.0) only one license identifier needs to be added as opposed to one for all the potential special exception combinations (e.g., autoconf, bison, classpath, …)
In the SPDX 2.0 Specification why are certain licenses with exception identifiers (e.g. GPL-2.0-with-bison-exception) no longer in the SPDX License List?
It was decided to rework the way special expectations will be handled in the 2.0 version of the SPDX specification. The SPDX Legal working group identified more than 30 additional distinct exceptions. If one tried to accommodate the many different permutations of the different exceptions with the “or later” cases, the license list would become bloated and unwieldy. The introduction of the WITH operator and a separate list of exception identifiers alleviates the problem.
Does a license expression imply any particular legal interpretation?
No. Although the semantics of the operators describe a physical relationship between licenses, it is up to the user or distributor of the software to decide how to interpret the legal dynamics of the physical relationship of the licenses. For example, the expression GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause describes a relationship where one can choose between two licenses, but it does not imply any specific interpretation of how to choose or the way to interpret the respective licenses. Another example is GPL-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause. The AND operator represents that the code from two different works has been combined via linking or source code embedding (e.g., for example a program is created by combining two different files under two different licenses). It does not specifically imply whether the resulting expression is a derivative work or a collection. The legal determination of whether the two licenses are compatible or how one might interpret the marriage of these licenses is left to the user or distributor of the file or program. It is conceivable that different organizations could come to different legal determinations for the same license expression. This is no different than two organizations having different interpretations of a given license or how to interpret the ramifications of dynamic vs. static linking.
What is the difference between a License and a License Expression?
A license represents a single well defined license text such as the GNU Public License or the Apache License which may have different versions made available over time. A license expression can describe the relationship between two or more licenses or license exceptions. A relationship is often created when one mixes source code under two different licenses or one chooses to offer there software under a choice of two or more licenses.
Is the License Expression Syntax Case Sensitive?
No. One can use both upper or lower case.
