-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 293
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Discrepancies between GPL 1.0 & 2.0 canonical texts and their associated SPDX templates #2568
Comments
It appears the same issue exists in the (old) LGPL variants too:
The |
good catch! And since the copyright notice in this (somewhat rare case) is on the license itself, this is not a situation where for matching purposes it might be ignored as part of the copyright notice. the good news is that this can easily be accommodated with the alt tag. @pmonks - do you want to prepare a PR? |
Is the change in the sample copyright disclaimer relevant here? - <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989
- Ty Coon, President of Vice
+ <signature of Moe Ghoul>, 1 April 1989
+ Moe Ghoul, President of Vice |
this just needs a PR to address these variations |
+1 to merging the address vs URL change. Perhaps "The GNU Volunteer Coordinators gvc@gnu.org can assist you if you would like to help developing GNU software." would be a decent place to pose your query on notice re breaking changes. |
There are discrepancies between FSF's canonical
GPL-1.0
andGPL-2.0
texts and their associated SPDX templates that cause matching to fail in downstream software that performs matching.Specifically:
GPL-1.0
text no longer includes a physical address on line 6, and has added a URL in that location instead. Neither of these changes are taken into account in either theGPL-1.0-only
orGPL-1.0-or-later
SPDX templates.GPL-2.0
text now has a URL on line 6. While theGPL-2.0-only
andGPL-2.0-or-later
SPDX templates correctly handle the (now optional) physical address, neither of them handle the (presumably optional) URL that is now included in the canonical text.Note: if the SPDX project has contacts over at the FSF it may be worth asking them if it might be possible to notify the SPDX project whenever they make changes of any kind to their license texts (even/especially "legally inconsequential" ones). Previous issues (including #2430, #2204, #1995, #1973, #1972) suggest that the FSF are quite liberal about making such changes and thereby inadvertently breaking SPDX license matching randomly.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: