[License-discuss] OSI Adopts SPDX IDs for License URLs

[Simon Phipps]

I agree with Richard here. The -only and -or-later variants are all
deployment options for the GPL licenses and do not reflect the licenses
that OSI has actually approved, which embrace both variants.

Simon
(in a personal capacity)

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:00 PM Richard Fontana via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> I agree with the comment. SPDX's replacement of GPL-2.0/GPL-2.0+ with
> "GPL-2.0-only"/"GPL-2.0-or-later" (etc.) (at the instigation of the
> FSF) has been pretty much a complete debacle IMO, but "GPL-2.0"
> continues to be a valid SPDX identifier and I think it is usefully
> used for things like this where the license is one level of
> abstraction removed from its actual application to some sort of
> licensable material.
>
> Richard
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 11:19 AM Nick Vidal <nick.vidal at opensource.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Cross posting comment from ferdnyc at
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2959#issuecomment-4018341555
> >
> > I wanted to bring up the GPL specifically: I notice that OSI is listing
> all of the GPL versions as "GPL-X.Y-only" (and in fact, URLs like
> https://opensource.org/license/GPL-3.0-or-later result in a 404 error),
> but the license text displayed at
> https://opensource.org/license/GPL-3.0-only has a "How to Apply These
> Terms..." section that includes the "either version 3 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version." text, making it appear to be
> GPL-3.0-or-later.
> >
> > (In truth, AIUI the FSF doesn't differentiate between GPL-3.0-only and
> GPL-3.0-or-later themselves, the difference is in how you choose to apply
> the license to your work. But in light of that, calling the license
> "GPL-3.0-only" doesn't appear to be correct... it's either just "GPL-3.0",
> or it's "GPL-3.0-or-later" (as it allows for the "any later version"
> stipulation, or it's BOTH.)
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:16 AM Nick Vidal <nick.vidal at opensource.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> The OSI is looking for feedback from the community about an important
> change to the OSI-Approved licenses listed on our website.
> >>
> >> We've standardized OSI license URLs using SPDX identifiers, while
> carefully preserving compatibility with the many links that already exist
> across the web and tools.
> >>
> >> The full set of OSI-approved licenses continues to be available at:
> >>
> >> https://opensource.org/licenses
> >>
> >> More details about the update is available here:
> >>
> >> https://opensource.org/blog/osi-adopts-spdx-ids-for-license-urls
> >>
> >> If you spot any broken links or odd behaviour, please let us know.
> >>
> >> Feel free to reach out to us by replying to this mailing list or by
> commenting here:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2959
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Nick
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> >
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260310/3ee6ad8b/attachment-0001.htm>