HI all, Thanks for the thoughts and weighing in. We will simply keep LGPL-3.0 as is, listed as a license on the SPDX License List and not as an exception. Good to have a think about it all, though!
By the way, 2.0 will be LIVE tomorrow!! yippee!!! Cheers, Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Mar 27, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:10 PM, J Lovejoy <opensou...@jilayne.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Let me sum this up, to make sure we are all on the same page. >> >> LGPLv3 will be on the license list - there is no question there. The >> question is, now that we have the exceptions listed on their own, should it >> be there (http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/exceptions-index.html) or remain >> as a "standalone" license on the main list >> (http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/) >> >> I don't think there is a "right" answer here... we can be consistent in how >> other exceptions are represented or not (ostensibly due to external >> considerations). As much as I do prefer consistency, we have already seen >> before that trying to apply "rules" in a consistent manner to open source >> licenses and how they are represented is almost impossible. >> >> I believe that historically speaking, LGPLv3 was very intentionally drafted >> this way with a goal of making it easier to apply and understand (given the >> confusion over LGPLv2.1), which sort of cuts towards treating it as a true >> exception (Alan's theory very interesting, though!) >> >> So, let's take a look at the two option: >> >> 1) To be consistent, it would seem that LGPLv3 is an exception in the same >> way as these other exceptions. This would mean it would be listed with the >> exceptions and to represent LGPLv3 using the License Expression Syntax would >> look like this: >> GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0 >> >> (this feels a bit odd, but it would be accurate technically speaking...) > > This would indeed be accurate but both odd and confusing. > >> Or, >> >> 2) We could simply leave LGPLv3 on the main license list (as if it was a >> standalone license) and thus it would be represented as its standalone short >> identifier: >> LGPL-3.0 >> >> (This would be technically inconsistent with how the other exceptions are >> represented, but results in an arguably more expected identification via the >> short identifier.) > > This is IMHO the only sane thing to do. Practically beast purity. > >> I don't know-- as much as I like consistency and accuracy (#1) - the >> resultant license expression syntax of "GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0" feels... >> wrong. >> I'd also be afraid that if we went that route it would be confusing, because >> it's not what you'd expect and that the community would, well, freak out >> (possibly justifiably). As to the latter concern, I just sent Bradley Kuhn >> an email about this to gain his thoughts, since I have spoken to him a bit >> about the efforts to improve our list of exceptions. Thus, #2 just "feels" >> more appropriate.*sigh* >> >> In the meantime, I'd be curious to hear thoughts what with the syntax >> staring at you. > > #2 aka LGPL-3.0 is the only thing that makes sense to me. > > -- > Cordially > Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
