Re: New Exception Request: GPL Cooperation Commitment 1.0

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

J Lovejoy wrote just now:
> I agree that it would be productive to discuss these at the same time,

I was on the call today as well, and as I mentioned there, I was the person
who initially asked they be considered separately, but as Fontana says

Fontana wrote:
> > Re-reading the GitHub issue, I remembered that this list had an earlier
> > thread about whether an SPDX identifier would be appropriate for the
> > commitment texts published by Red Hat and other companies at the launch
> > of what we now call the GPL Cooperation Commitment initiative. Since that
> > time, the GPL Cooperation Commitment has been slightly expanded to
> > include a form suitable for inclusion in source trees, much as the Linux
> > Kernel Enforcement Statement is included in the kernel source tree.

...the GithHub issue was filed and discussed was *before* the GPL Cooperation
Commitment was written down as an additional permission designed for
licensing.

Now that the Cooperation Commitment and Kernel Enforcement Statement are both
written up this way, we should certainly talk about them together.

> Thus, can we all aim for the Nov 29th call?  Of course, happy to carry on
> the discussion on the mailing list in the meantime.

Yeah, Nov 29th is fine for me, thanks for accommodating my and Karen's
schedule.

I'm glad to discuss it on the mailing list in meantime if folks want that
too!
--
Bradley M. Kuhn

Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2415): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2415
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27401456/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: New Exception Request: GPL Cooperation Commitment 1.0

[Richard Fontana]

I previously wrote, referring to
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655

> as Bradley Kuhn says in a comment to that issue, "drafted somewhat
> differently and therefore presumably should be analyzed differently
> so as not to conflate apples and oranges".

On further thought, there are actually more underlying similarities
than differences between these two exceptions. I believe it would be
productive for them to be considered and discussed at the same time.

Re-reading the GitHub issue, I remembered that this list had an
earlier thread about whether an SPDX identifier would be appropriate
for the commitment texts published by Red Hat and other companies at
the launch of what we now call the GPL Cooperation Commitment
initiative. Since that time, the GPL Cooperation Commitment has been
slightly expanded to include a form suitable for inclusion in source
trees, much as the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement is included in
the kernel source tree.

Bradley, given that, what are your feelings on this at this point?
Would you be comfortable at this point considering them together?

Richard

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2413): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2413
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27401456/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: New Exception Request: Qt-GPL-exception-1.0

[J Lovejoy]

Thanks both - this and the changes/deprecation of the existing exception will 
be in the soon-to-be-released v3.2 of the SPDX License List

Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com


> On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:47 PM, Kai Koehne  wrote:
> 
> >From: W. Trevor King mailto:wk...@tremily.us>>
> >Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:30 PM
> >To: Kai Koehne
> >Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org <mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
> >Subject: Re: New Exception Request: Qt-GPL-exception-1.0
> >> >>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:50:57PM +, Kai Koehne wrote:
> >> >> Exception 1:  As a special exception you may create…
> >> >>
> >> >> Exception 2:  As a special exception, you have permission…
> >> >
> >> > I expect commas after “special exception” in both entries, not
> >> > just for Exception 2.  If it's too late to change that everywhere,
> >> > perhaps we can add an , to recommend it going
> >> > forward while continuing to match the comma-less version?
> >>
> >> Good point about the commas, I'll suggest to change this. But this
> >> will take its time to end up in a released version of Qt.
> >
> >So how do you feel about:
> >
> >  As a special exception, you may create
> >
> >That means that we recommend folks include a comma, but that we
> >consider both forms matches for Qt-GPL-exception-1.0. 
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy>
> 
> Sounds great!
> 
> Kai
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org <mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal 
> <https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2316): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2316
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/22080991/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: New Exception Request: Qt-GPL-exception-1.0

[Kai Koehne]

>From: W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us>
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:30 PM
>To: Kai Koehne
>Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>Subject: Re: New Exception Request: Qt-GPL-exception-1.0
>> >>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:50:57PM +, Kai Koehne wrote:
>> >> Exception 1:  As a special exception you may create…
>> >>
>> >> Exception 2:  As a special exception, you have permission…
>> >
>> > I expect commas after “special exception” in both entries, not
>> > just for Exception 2.  If it's too late to change that everywhere,
>> > perhaps we can add an , to recommend it going
>> > forward while continuing to match the comma-less version?
>>
>> Good point about the commas, I'll suggest to change this. But this
>> will take its time to end up in a released version of Qt.
>
>So how do you feel about:
>
>  As a special exception, you may create
>
>That means that we recommend folks include a comma, but that we
>consider both forms matches for 
>Qt-GPL-exception-1.0.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy>

Sounds great!

Kai
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New Exception Request: Qt-GPL-exception-1.0

[Kai Koehne]

> From: W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us>
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:20 PM
> To: Kai Koehne
> Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> Subject: Re: New Exception Request: Qt-GPL-exception-1.0
>
> I've filed [1] to add this.

Thanks for the merge request, that was quick :)

>>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:50:57PM +, Kai Koehne wrote:
>> Exception 1:  As a special exception you may create…
>>
>> Exception 2:  As a special exception, you have permission…
>
> I expect commas after “special exception” in both entries, not just
> for Exception 2.  If it's too late to change that everywhere, perhaps
> we can add an , to recommend it going forward
> while continuing to match the comma-less version?


Good point about the commas, I'll suggest to change this. But this will take 
its time to end up in a released version of Qt.

Regards

Kai

--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

RE: New Exception Request:

[Zavras, Alexios]

Since the authors seem to be in the email thread, may I please ask for a 
version number to the exception(s) ?
Experience has shown that texts change and I’d rather avoid the case of W3C, 
W3C-19980720, W3C-20150513, etc.

In SPDX names, I think we always use the singular “-exception”, even if the 
text contains more than one (FLTK-exception is an example, I think).

-- zvr –

From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Tuesday, 12 December, 2017 02:59
To: SPDX-legal 
Cc: clatt...@llvm.org; Heather Meeker ; 
arnaud.degrandmai...@arm.com
Subject: New Exception Request:

Hi All,

I’ve been meaning to send this for review, so hopefully I can make it under the 
line for the next release.

LLVM has been working on a re-licensing project for some time now. They have 
decided upon Apache-2.0 with a special exception to avoid obligations when 
redistributing complied code (a la GCC exception) and to avoid the Apache-2.0 - 
GPL-2.0 incompatibility issue.

I don’t think I have to explain what LLVM is here or its importance.

While this is a somewhat pre-emptive request, I think it’s important to provide 
LLVM with the full availability of using SPDX identifiers by adding this 
exception.

URL to text: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-August/116266.html 
(LLVM website to be updated)

Text of exception:

 LLVM Exceptions to the Apache 2.0 License 



   As an exception, if, as a result of your compiling your source code, portions

   of this Software are embedded into an Object form of such source code, you

   may redistribute such embedded portions in such Object form without complying

   with the conditions of Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(d) of the License.



   In addition, if you combine or link compiled forms of this Software with

   software that is licensed under the GPLv2 ("Combined Software") and if a

   court of competent jurisdiction determines that the patent provision (Section

   3), the indemnity provision (Section 9) or other Section of the License

   conflicts with the conditions of the GPLv2, you may retroactively and

   prospectively choose to deem waived or otherwise exclude such Section(s) of

   the License, but only in their entirety and only with respect to the Combined

   Software.



Thanks,

Jilayne


SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New Exception Request:

[Dennis Clark]

Jilayne, Legal Team, and Community:

I have added this Exception Request to
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0

Regards,
Dennis Clark
nexB Inc.


On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:59 PM, J Lovejoy  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I’ve been meaning to send this for review, so hopefully I can make it
> under the line for the next release.
>
> LLVM has been working on a re-licensing project for some time now. They
> have decided upon Apache-2.0 with a special exception to avoid obligations
> when redistributing complied code (a la GCC exception) and to avoid the
> Apache-2.0 - GPL-2.0 incompatibility issue.
>
> I don’t think I have to explain what LLVM is here or its importance.
>
> While this is a somewhat pre-emptive request, I think it’s important to
> provide LLVM with the full availability of using SPDX identifiers by adding
> this exception.
>
> URL to text: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-
> August/116266.html (LLVM website to be updated)
>
> Text of exception:
>
>  LLVM Exceptions to the Apache 2.0 License 
>
>As an exception, if, as a result of your compiling your source code, 
> portions
>of this Software are embedded into an Object form of such source code, you
>may redistribute such embedded portions in such Object form without 
> complying
>with the conditions of Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(d) of the License.
>
>In addition, if you combine or link compiled forms of this Software with
>software that is licensed under the GPLv2 ("Combined Software") and if a
>court of competent jurisdiction determines that the patent provision 
> (Section
>3), the indemnity provision (Section 9) or other Section of the License
>conflicts with the conditions of the GPLv2, you may retroactively and
>prospectively choose to deem waived or otherwise exclude such Section(s) of
>the License, but only in their entirety and only with respect to the 
> Combined
>Software.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jilayne
>
>
>
> SPDX Legal Team co-lead
> opensou...@jilayne.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal