Hello mates,
i'm trying to build a new packageversion. The old Licenses Field was "GPLv3 or later". If i'm going to: http://license.opensuse.org/ and place GPLv3 there, the Site proposes to use "GPL-3". If i'm placing this into the Licenses Field i become: kvirustotal-lang.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3 The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to http://license.opensuse.org/ for the list of known licences and their exact spelling.
But why this false? Does anyone knows more?
Wish all a happy X-Mas Sascha
* Sascha Manns Sascha.Manns@open-slx.de [2011-12-25 14:57]:
Hello mates,
i'm trying to build a new packageversion. The old Licenses Field was "GPLv3 or later". If i'm going to: http://license.opensuse.org/ and place GPLv3 there, the Site proposes to use "GPL-3". If i'm placing this into the Licenses Field i become: kvirustotal-lang.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3 The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to http://license.opensuse.org/ for the list of known licences and their exact spelling.
But why this false? Does anyone knows more?
Use the abbreviations from http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ instead, in this case "GPL-3.0+".
Guido Berhoerster wrote at Sonntag, 25. Dezember 2011, 16:01:16:
- Sascha Manns Sascha.Manns@open-slx.de [2011-12-25 14:57]:
Hello mates,
i'm trying to build a new packageversion. The old Licenses Field was "GPLv3 or later". If i'm going to: http://license.opensuse.org/ and place GPLv3 there, the Site proposes to use "GPL-3". If i'm placing this into the Licenses Field i become: kvirustotal-lang.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3 The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to http://license.opensuse.org/ for the list of known licences and their exact spelling.
But why this false? Does anyone knows more?
Use the abbreviations from http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ instead, in this case "GPL-3.0+".
Great that works. Thanks a lot. I've not seen that page before. Now i'ts a part of my Bookmark Collection :-)
On 25.12.2011 16:01, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
- Sascha Manns Sascha.Manns@open-slx.de [2011-12-25 14:57]:
Hello mates,
i'm trying to build a new packageversion. The old Licenses Field was "GPLv3 or later". If i'm going to: http://license.opensuse.org/ and place GPLv3 there, the Site proposes to use "GPL-3". If i'm placing this into the Licenses Field i become: kvirustotal-lang.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3 The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to http://license.opensuse.org/ for the list of known licences and their exact spelling.
But why this false? Does anyone knows more?
Use the abbreviations from http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ instead, in this case "GPL-3.0+".
It's a known issue that license.opensuse.org works incorrectly, but we ran out of time before christmas vacations.
Greetings, Stephan
On 12/25/2011 04:16 PM, Sascha Manns wrote:
Use the abbreviations from http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ instead, in this case "GPL-3.0+".
Great that works. Thanks a lot. I've not seen that page before. Now i'ts a part of my Bookmark Collection :-)
What is the convention when the package is licensed under various of them? comma? "and"? "+" ?
Le lundi 09 janvier 2012, à 15:26 +0100, Duncan Mac-Vicar P. a écrit :
On 12/25/2011 04:16 PM, Sascha Manns wrote:
Use the abbreviations from http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ instead, in this case "GPL-3.0+".
Great that works. Thanks a lot. I've not seen that page before. Now i'ts a part of my Bookmark Collection :-)
What is the convention when the package is licensed under various of them? comma? "and"? "+" ?
It depends what you mean with more than one license.
If I'm not mistaken, it's something like this:
- "GPL-2.0+ ; LGPL-2.1+": aggregate (different files with different licenses)
- "GPL-2.0+ or LGPL-2.1+": choice of licenses (dual-licensed software, for instance)
- "GPL-2.0+ and LGPL-2.1+": mix of licenses (not sure when this happens, probably when some binary is made from code with two compatible licenses?)
Cheers,
Vincent
On 10.01.2012 12:00, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 09 janvier 2012, à 15:26 +0100, Duncan Mac-Vicar P. a écrit :
On 12/25/2011 04:16 PM, Sascha Manns wrote:
Use the abbreviations from http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ instead, in this case "GPL-3.0+".
Great that works. Thanks a lot. I've not seen that page before. Now i'ts a part of my Bookmark Collection :-)
What is the convention when the package is licensed under various of them? comma? "and"? "+" ?
It depends what you mean with more than one license.
If I'm not mistaken, it's something like this:
- "GPL-2.0+ ; LGPL-2.1+": aggregate (different files with different licenses)
This form is another form for "and" - and not spdx.org, but something we leave untouched for the time being because we used it in former times.
- "GPL-2.0+ or LGPL-2.1+": choice of licenses (dual-licensed software, for instance)
Right. "or" is correct if the user can choose.
- "GPL-2.0+ and LGPL-2.1+": mix of licenses (not sure when this happens, probably when some binary is made from code with two compatible licenses?)
No, if a binary is made from code with two compatible licenses, one license wins - and the other license is compatible with this (most often it's the GPL that wins :).
"and" is correctly used in your ";" case - if your package is an aggregate of GPL binaries and LGPL libraries. Licensewise it's better to split the package into sub packages then and have one LGPL and one GPL (of course always with the correct versioning) as suggested by spdx.org
Greetings, Stephan
-
Duncan Mac-Vicar P. -
Guido Berhoerster -
Sascha Manns -
Stephan Kulow -
Vincent Untz