Hi Philippe,
~ Philippe Ombredanne [2022-03-10 18:33 +0100]:
> Why would we need to change the SPDX text for the purpose of one tool
> and convention?
IIUC, this is not changing the text of the LGPL license in SPDX, but
adding an optional segment. This optional text does not come out of the
blue
Steve, Max:
FWIW, I already voiced my objection on this topic in the past and I
think this is going to be a source of confusion and ambiguity.
Why would we need to change the SPDX text for the purpose of one tool
and convention?
Max: Could you not change your text in your tool instead?
- I do no
Hi Max, circling back on this thread and your question:
We briefly discussed this as a follow-up on the last legal team call, and
agreed that there did not appear to be any significant objections to
modifying the LGPL-3.0[-only/-or-later] templates as earlier described
here. I'm planning to submit
~ Steve Winslow [2022-01-10 22:33 +0100]:
> *Proposal*:
>
> REUSE would like to see the combined LGPL-3.0 + GPL-3.0 text used as the
> plain text file for LGPL-3.0 on the License List. That way, anyone pulling
> from the plain text licenses will (correctly) include both the LGPL and GPL
> texts.
>
ility or daemon might be under
GPL, or at least the project would attempt to implement such a policy.
Richard
>
>
>
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: Steve Winslow
> Datum: 11.01.22 08:41 (GMT-06:00)
> An: Alexios Zavras
> Cc: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> B
avras
Cc: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Betreff: Re: License text for LGPL-3.0
Thanks Alan, Max and Alexios for your thoughts. A couple of responses inline
below:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:55 AM Alexios Zavras
mailto:alexios.zav...@intel.com>> wrote:
. . .
Therefore I am not confident we should
> *From:* Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org *On Behalf
> Of *Steve Winslow
> *Sent:* Monday, 10 January, 2022 23:33
> *To:* Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> *Subject:* License text for LGPL-3.0
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> This is a follow-up from the discussion last summer
g On Behalf Of Steve
Winslow
Sent: Monday, 10 January, 2022 23:33
To: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: License text for LGPL-3.0
Hi all,
This is a follow-up from the discussion last summer at [1], based on the
conversation during the Legal Team call this past week.
Folks may want to re-read the
Steve, thank you so much for summarising the discussion, and the Legal
Team for working on the topic. I regret that I did not join the call,
but from what I see you basically got everything covered anyway.
~ Steve Winslow [2022-01-10 22:33 +0100]:
> * The license-list-XML repo includes plain text
at 1:33 PM
To: "Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org"
Subject: License text for LGPL-3.0
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Western Digital. Do not click on
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the
content is safe.
Hi all,
This is a follow-u
Hi all,
This is a follow-up from the discussion last summer at [1], based on the
conversation during the Legal Team call this past week.
Folks may want to re-read the (long) thread there, which has links to the
(long) discussion [2] in 2019-2020 and the (long) original conversation in
2015.
Assu
11 matches
Mail list logo
