add GNU licenses with new identifiers (*-only and *-or-later)

[jlovejoy]

• GPL-1.0-only or GPL-1.0-or-later

• GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later

• GPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later

• LGPL-2.0-only or LGPL-2.0-or-later

• LGPL-2.1-only or LGPL-2.1-or-later

• LGPL-3.0-only or LGPL-3.0-or-later

• FDL-1.1-only or FDL-1.1-or-later

• FDL-1.2-only or FDL-1.2-or-later

• FDL-1.3-only or FDL-1.3-or-later

• AGPL-3.0-only or AGPL-3.0-or-later

license text is same for each set
ensure standard header reflect correct wording for each one

[zvr]

The FDL ones are actually GFDL ;)

[zvr]

I assume that this does not affect the isOsiApproved attribute...

I mean, if GPL-2.0 was approved, then GPL-2.0-only and GPL-2.0-or-later are also marked as approved.

[zvr]

Submitted #553

[wking]

Why is AGPL-1.0 not receiving the same treatment?

[wking]

I still think this explicit-license-list-entry approach (vs. versioning operators) is going to make it difficult to GPL proxy declarations in the future. I realize that this is the approach adopted by the legal team after lots of discussion, but thought I'd add a final mention here in case there's a last-minute change of heart or anything ;).

[wking]

With #553 merged, what's left here? Just the AGPL-1.0 handling?

[zvr]

As far as I can tell, AGPL-1.0 was a license by Affero, not by the Free Software Foundation and they never raised an issue regarding "or later".

[wking]

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:22:47AM +0000, Alexios Zavras (zvr) wrote: As far as I can tell, AGPL-1.0 was a license by Affero, not by the Free Software Foundation…

Right.

… and they never raised an issue regarding "or later".

Is our use of -only and -or-later license names really as narrow as “we only use these if the steward complains about version operators”? The AGPL-1.0 has a §9 [1] which is very similar to the GPL-2.0's [2]. Both contain the: If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by {the Free Software Foundation|Affero, Inc}. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by {the Free Software Foundation|Affero, Inc}. which seemed to be the trigger for this issue. The AGPL-1.0 *also* ties the “any later version” grant to the GPL-3.0+ in their §9, and they've cut an AGPL-2.0 [3] as a shim to allow folks to use an “any later version” grant to go from AGPL-1.0+ → AGPL-2.0+ → AGPL-3.0+ [4]. So this seems like *exactly* the same situation as the GPL family. I'd like to keep our handling consistent. I much prefer using version operators, but if the intention is to use specific licenses to cover these explicit-versioning grants, I'd rather drag the CDDL family and the AGPL-1.0 along too instead of having two separate approaches to the same problem. [1]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/1802f8491db2574a093fde665f08672a5d069189/src/AGPL-1.0.xml#L231-L243 [2]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/1802f8491db2574a093fde665f08672a5d069189/src/GPL-2.0.xml#L336-L349 [3]: http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html [4]: http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html

[jlovejoy]

I am conferring with the FSF as to AGPL-1.0 - I will make the appropriate changes as needed when I get feedback there. No further discussion needed at this point.

[wking]

I am conferring with the FSF as to AGPL-1.0

Have we heard back on this? I'd like to get this and #543 closed off so we can close the 3.0 milestone, since it's strange to have that milestone open after we've cut the 3.0 release. If it will take more time to address the AGPL-1.0, we may want to move this issue to the 3.1 milestone.

[jlovejoy]

oops, yes, we have and I have confirmed that we should treat AGPL-1.0 that same) as we suspected.
@zvr or @wking can one of you do a PR for those? (I'll change the label on this and the other issue in the meantime, since this is now a 3.1 release item)

Thanks!

[wking]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:56:18PM +0000, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: oops, yes, we have and I have confirmed that we should treat AGPL-1.0 that same) as we suspected.

Do we want to add an entry for the AGPL-2.0 [1]? A potential use-case would be to record the path for folks seeing to transition from AGPL-1.0-or-later to AGPL-3.0-or-later in case the www.affero.org copy goes away (or even if it stays, to make it easier to talk about that transition using SPDX identifiers). I'm not sure how many active projects are still under the AGPL-1.0, so maybe recording the path is not an issue. [1]: http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html

[jlovejoy]

no need to add AGPLv2 - we vetted that conversation way back with key folks who knew the history and it was decided not to add it then. So, no need to revisit now! :)

[wking]

no need to add AGPLv2 - we vetted that conversation way back with key folks who knew the history and it was decided not to add it then.

For the curious, I've turned up an entry-point to that discussion here.

[wking]

Can someone with write access close the 3.0 milestone now that it's complete? There should be a button here.