Hi Team,
sorry for another question regarding SPDX and its mapping to the world.
From time to time you find additional statements from the copyright holders
regarding their view about the scope of the GPL. Since these are statements
from the copyright holders I regard them as relevant license information. I
want to provide two examples:
1. Linux Kernel: probably all of you know the statement of Linus Torvalds:
“ NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.”
Which is right in the beginning of the COPYING file.
2. Jailhouse (which is a hypervisor for Linux and it is licensed under
GPL-2.0 and the following clarification)
This copyright does not cover applications or operating systems that run inside
hypervisor cells, also if they use hypervisor services by normal hypercalls.
This is considered normal use of the hypervisor and is not a "derived work".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
….
My questions are how are the Clarifications handled in SPDX? Is the Linux
Kernel licensed under GPL-2.0 or under GPL-2.0-with-clarification (I know that
this currently does not exist).
If the Linux Kernel is regarded to be licensed under GPL-2.0 how is the
clarification to be handled in SPDX? In my opinion it must not be neglected.
The same questions apply to all other such clarifications
Thanks for your patience
Ciao
Oliver
Siemens AG
Corporate Technology
CT BE OP SWI OSS
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
81739 München, Deutschland
Tel.: +49 89 636-46033
mailto:oliver.fe...@siemens.com
Von: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] Im Auftrag von J Lovejoy
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. August 2014 03:25
An: SPDX-legal
Betreff: SugarCRM license
Hi All,
In preparing the SPDX License List v1.20 for release, I noticed an oddity with
the SugarCRM License, v1.1.3 http://spdx.org/licenses/SugarCRM-1.1.3
The license text here, http://www.sugarcrm.com/page/sugarcrm-public-license/en
(which is where we got the license text from for the SPDX data), is slightly
different than what we had for the license in the current (v1.19) version of
the SPDX License List - the version at the url currently does not have the
definition for “Commercial Use” and it also has some sub-sections out of
numerical or alphabetical order. I did not do a complete merge-and-compare of
the substantive text, as the differences were enough such that it would fail as
a match with our version. Since the license version number is the same and
there is no other signs of a new version or license update, I updated the .txt
file for v1.20 to match the text contained on the url. I have no idea why
there was a mismatch, as this was a license that has been on the SPDX License
List since early iterations. If someone wants to do further research on this
issue (maybe by starting with contacting SugarCRM?), that would be very much
appreciated.
I’m also attaching the v1.19 .txt file of the license text for reference.
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
