Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page (was: Linux syscall exception agreed documentation)

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

J Lovejoy wrote:
>  The SPDX License List includes a list of exceptions. These exceptions
>  grant an exception to a license condition or additional permissions beyond
>  those granted in a license; they are not stand-alone licenses. Exceptions
>  are added to a license using the License Expression Syntax operator
>  "WITH.”

This final draft looks good to me.

>This page is not update the usual way, because it is part of the license
>list and generated differently

Yes, I figured that the update was going to happen as part of the 2.7
release.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page (was: Linux syscall exception agreed documentation)

[J Lovejoy]

Thanks for the reminder, Bradley.  

and yes, the final version is in the email that Trevor referenced which was:

The SPDX License List includes a list of exceptions. These exceptions grant an 
exception to a license condition or additional permissions beyond those granted 
in a license; they are not stand-alone licenses. Exceptions are added to a 
license using the License Expression Syntax operator "WITH.”

This page is not update the usual way, because it is part of the license list 
and generated differently using some tooling Gary wrote and a template. 

Gary - I should know where this is… but can you help here?

Thanks!

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


> On Sep 27, 2017, at 3:35 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:05:20PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> Jilayne was keeping track of the canonical draft of that, and there
>> was some drafting discussion on this list about it.
> 
> The discussion I'm aware of was in [1,2].  Do folks remember other
> threads besides those?
> 
>> I don't think Jilayne posted a final version of the text that's
>> expected for the update in 2.7 Exception list.
> 
> Is that still a draft?  From [2]:
> 
>  if someone has a burning objection to this, say so, otherwise, I’ll
>  update the page after the next meeting.
> 
> sounds fairly settled, although [3] remains unchanged.  If it's still
> a draft, folks with concerns about the suggested language should
> probably raise their concerns, and we can get them hashed out.
> 
> Personally, I don't see the need for an exceptions list outside the
> spec, and a PR against spdx-spec (with text to go around [4,5]?) would
> be a lot easier for me to track than mailing list discussion that
> jumps threads every few months ;).  If that seems reasonable, we could
> move the exception-description discussion into a spdx-spec PR, and
> once we publish the next spec, replace [3] with a 302 to that section
> of the latest spec.
> 
> Cheers,
> Trevor
> 
> [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-July/002036.html
> Subject: revised wording for top of exceptions page
> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 23:35:40 +0100 
>   
> Message-ID: <5f1d2c18-6d14-4ccd-80d3-6008588bb...@jilayne.com>
> [2]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-July/002078.html
> Subject: revised text for top of exceptions page
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:34:12 -0600 
>   
>   
> Message-ID: <cfc5fb98-bdec-47bc-b64c-47b1473e7...@jilayne.com>
> [3]: https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html
> [4]: 
> https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/blob/cfa1b9d08903befdf03e669da6472707b7b60cb9/chapters/appendix-I-SPDX-license-list.md#i2-exceptions-list-
> [5]: 
> https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/blob/cfa1b9d08903befdf03e669da6472707b7b60cb9/chapters/appendix-IV-SPDX-license-expressions.md#3-exception-with-operator
> 
> -- 
> 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

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

RE: revised wording for top of exceptions page

[Zavras, Alexios]

My engineering, non-legal view is that a license specifies:

  *   What you are allowed to do (permissions); and
  *   What you must do (obligations).
[excuse the non-legal naming]

I assume that a “modification” may add to or remove from both categories.
Is this what we want the texts to be used via WITH to cover?
All the four variants? Or a subset of these (like “only additional permissions” 
or “only removal of obligations”)?

-- zvr –

From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Michael Dolan
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July, 2017 00:12
To: Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com>
Cc: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
Subject: Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page


On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Richard Fontana 
<rfont...@redhat.com<mailto:rfont...@redhat.com>> wrote:
There was one notorious case of the use of GPLv2 with a permissive and 
restrictive additional term that was described at the time as an "exception" -- 
Red Hat's license for Liberation Fonts 1.0. See: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts#Distribution

I wouldn't particularly recommend use of a 'WITH' expression to describe 
Liberation Fonts 1.0, but might not be the only example of a use of "exception" 
by a licensor (and the general public too) in this sense in the real world. 
IOW, there could be multiple cases in the real world of things called 
"exceptions" that are not "additional permissions".

Richard

That's a similar concern I raised on the call last week - though at the time I 
admittedly lacked a real world example as you have provided here. I was 
considering mentioning the "FreeRTOS GPL exception" 
(http://www.freertos.org/license.txt) which I discovered recently.  (I do not 
endorse what they created as an "exception", in fact they also refer to it as a 
"modification to the GPL", - I'm just citing its existence.)

Regardless of the example, the phrase I keep coming back to for describing 
exceptions is "modifier of something". I think of these as modifiers that only 
exist when applied to a license. Admittedly some licenses (though not all), 
prevent explicit "modification" of the license, but they all modify terms of 
what you can or cannot do or the conditions that apply.

The language I've used below may need cleanup, but the high level construct I 
was thinking about was similar to the following statement. Plain text is not 
easy for redlining, so I've used [ADD: ] and [REMOVE: ] in brackets to show 
additions and deletions from the original proposal Jilayne and Bradley took the 
initiative to draft (thank you).

The SPDX License List includes a list of commonly found exceptions to open 
source licenses.  Exceptions [ADD: may exempt, modify or add terms, permissions 
or conditions] [REMOVE: grant additional permissions] beyond those [REMOVE: 
already given] in the license that the exception modifies.  These exceptions 
are not stand-alone licenses; rather, they are designed for use with the 
License Expression Syntax operator, "WITH", to identify a license that includes 
an [REMOVE: additional permission] [ADD: Exception] [REMOVE: beyond those in 
the main license].

A "clean version" would read as:

The SPDX License List includes a list of commonly found exceptions to open 
source licenses.  Exceptions may exempt, modify or add terms, permissions or 
conditions beyond those in the license that the exception modifies.  These 
exceptions are not stand-alone licenses; rather, they are designed for use with 
the License Expression Syntax operator, "WITH", to identify a license that 
includes an exception.

-- Mike
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: revised wording for top of exceptions page

[Richard Fontana]

There was one notorious case of the use of GPLv2 with a permissive and 
restrictive additional term that was described at the time as an "exception" -- 
Red Hat's license for Liberation Fonts 1.0. See: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts#Distribution 

I wouldn't particularly recommend use of a 'WITH' expression to describe 
Liberation Fonts 1.0, but might not be the only example of a use of "exception" 
by a licensor (and the general public too) in this sense in the real world. 
IOW, there could be multiple cases in the real world of things called 
"exceptions" that are not "additional permissions". 

Richard 

- Original Message -

From: "W. Trevor King" <wk...@tremily.us> 
To: "Phil Odence" <pode...@blackducksoftware.com> 
Cc: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> 
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:03:15 PM 
Subject: Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page 

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 12:23:43PM +, Phil Odence wrote: 


The SPDX License List includes a list of Exceptions. These 
Exceptions are commonly-granted permissions beyond those normally 
granted in a license. (They are not stand-alone licenses.) 
Exceptions are added to a license using the License Expression 
Syntax operator "WITH." 

This sounds good to me, although I don't see a need to parenthesize 



the stand-alone sentence. I also think there may be room for 
confusion around whether “a license” includes the exception or not. 
And the exception list is distinct from the license list (although 
both are currently tracked in the same repository). How about: 

The SPDX Exception List includes a list of Exceptions. These 
Exceptions are added to a License using the License Expression 
Syntax operator "WITH" to grant additional permissions beyond those 
already given in the License that the Exception modifies. 

If we restrict exceptions to only granting additional permissions, we 
probably also want to adjust the License Expression wording, which has 
[1]: 

Sometimes a set of license terms apply except under special 
circumstances. In this case, use the binary "WITH" operator to 
construct a new license expression to represent the special 
exception situation. 

The current License Expression wording would cover an exception like 
“but I grant no license to users whose first name starts with the 
letter A” which would not be covered by the proposed 
additional-permissions wording. And it would be good to keep the 
wording for WITH in the License Expression appendix close to the 
wording used to introduce the Exception list. 

Cheers, 
Trevor 

[1]: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60 

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

Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page

[W. Trevor King]

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 12:23:43PM +, Phil Odence wrote:
> The SPDX License List includes a list of Exceptions. These
> Exceptions are commonly-granted permissions beyond those normally
> granted in a license. (They are not stand-alone licenses.)
> Exceptions are added to a license using the License Expression
> Syntax operator "WITH."

This sounds good to me, although I don't see a need to parenthesize
the stand-alone sentence.  I also think there may be room for
confusion around whether “a license” includes the exception or not.
And the exception list is distinct from the license list (although
both are currently tracked in the same repository).  How about:

  The SPDX Exception List includes a list of Exceptions. These
  Exceptions are added to a License using the License Expression
  Syntax operator "WITH" to grant additional permissions beyond those
  already given in the License that the Exception modifies.

If we restrict exceptions to only granting additional permissions, we
probably also want to adjust the License Expression wording, which has
[1]:

  Sometimes a set of license terms apply except under special
  circumstances.  In this case, use the binary "WITH" operator to
  construct a new license expression to represent the special
  exception situation.

The current License Expression wording would cover an exception like
“but I grant no license to users whose first name starts with the
letter A” which would not be covered by the proposed
additional-permissions wording.  And it would be good to keep the
wording for WITH in the License Expression appendix close to the
wording used to introduce the Exception list.

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60

-- 
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


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: revised wording for top of exceptions page

[Phil Odence]

Looks great. I was not able to make the call, but nonetheless took a shot at 
concise-isizing:
The SPDX License List includes a list of Exceptions. These Exceptions are 
commonly-granted permissions beyond those normally granted in a license. (They 
are not stand-alone licenses.) Exceptions are added to a license using the 
License Expression Syntax operator "WITH."

My sense from the discussion in the General Meeting was that there was some 
sensitivity to the term “Exceptions” so I capitalized, treating it similarly to 
defined term in a legal agreement. If we go that route, we may want to 
capitalize at least in the full names of the Exceptions, although I wonder if 
that will break anything. As an aside, I note we are a little inconsistent with 
capitalizing in identifiers. Not a big deal as far as I’m concerned, just 
observing.

From: <spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org> on behalf of Jilayne Lovejoy 
<opensou...@jilayne.com>
Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 6:35 PM
To: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
Subject: revised wording for top of exceptions page

Hi All,

As discussed on today’s call, all agreed that some clarification or revision of 
the explanatory text at the top of the license exceptions page was warranted. 
(see current first paragraph here: 
https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html )

Bradley was kind enough to get the ball rolling and we batted it around a bit 
and came up with the following.  I think this captures the concepts we were 
discussing on the call.  It could possibly be made a bit more concise, but it’s 
always easier to start with more and trim down!


The SPDX License List includes a list of commonly found exceptions to open
 source licenses.  Exceptions grant additional permissions beyond those
 already given in the license that the exception modifies.  These exceptions
 are not stand-alone licenses; rather, they are designed for use with the
 License Expression Syntax operator, "WITH", to identify a license that
 includes an additional permission beyond those in the main license.



Thought, input, word-smithing?

Thanks,
Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com<mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>

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

revised wording for top of exceptions page

[J Lovejoy]

Hi All,

As discussed on today’s call, all agreed that some clarification or revision of 
the explanatory text at the top of the license exceptions page was warranted. 
(see current first paragraph here: 
https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html 
 )

Bradley was kind enough to get the ball rolling and we batted it around a bit 
and came up with the following.  I think this captures the concepts we were 
discussing on the call.  It could possibly be made a bit more concise, but it’s 
always easier to start with more and trim down!


The SPDX License List includes a list of commonly found exceptions to open
 source licenses.  Exceptions grant additional permissions beyond those
 already given in the license that the exception modifies.  These exceptions
 are not stand-alone licenses; rather, they are designed for use with the
 License Expression Syntax operator, "WITH", to identify a license that
 includes an additional permission beyond those in the main license.



Thought, input, word-smithing?

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