Hi Wayne and Richard,
The syntax for the license expressions specify that the left side of the with must be a “simple-expression” and the right side must be a license exception. A simple expression is a license reference or a license ID. See https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60 for specifics. Unfortunately, this would disallow all but the first two permutations listed below. I recall discussing this during the creation of the license expressions and those in the discussion concluded that allowing complex license descriptions on either side of the with operator would make it difficult for both humans and computers to parse. We also discussed that to address these complex situations, a single exception which combines the terms for the other license/exceptions could be created. Perhaps that approach could be used here if the combination of licenses and exceptions is common. Gary From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 7:17 PM To: Richard Fontana Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: Re: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 I thought about doing something like what's done with MPL-2.0, but my understanding is that the exceptions to GPL are important. Maybe I'm just thinking about it too hard. e.g. I believe that all of these are valid permutations... EPL-2.0 EPL-2.0 with GPL-2.0 EPL-2.0 with (GPL-2.0 with Classpath-exception-2.0) EPL-2.0 with (GPL-2.0 with Assembly-exception-2.0) EPL-2.0 with (GPL-2.0 with Classpath-exception-2.0 with Assembly-exception-2.0) etc. Again, I may just be thinking about this too hard. Wayne On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> wrote: Regarding the secondary license support, should it follow what's done with MPL 2.0 (SPDX has separate license identifiers for MPL-2.0 and "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception"), thus something like "EPL-2.0" and "EPL-2.0-copyleft-exception"? I don't like the "MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception" myself as I find it confusing/counterintuitive, given that MPL-2.0 itself is a copyleft license, the 'exception' is not some sort of general exception having to do with copyleft (but rather is GPL-family-specific), and the GPL compatibility feature of MPL 2.0 is not described or (I think) generally thought of as an "exception". Richard _____ From: "Wayne Beaton" <wayne.bea...@eclipse-foundation.org> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:52:44 PM Subject: New License/Exception Request: EPL-2.0 The EPL-2.0 has been approved by the OSI and the Eclipse Board of Directors. We'd obviously like to see it included in the SPDX license list. FWIW, we're updating our legal documentation requirements to make heavy use of SPDX. 1. License name: Eclipse Public License 2.0 2. Proposed Identifier: EPL-2.0 3. URL: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ 4. The license is OSI-approved (though only just recently and so it's not posted yet) 5. The Eclipse OMR and Eclipse OpenJ9 projects are both currently switching over to the new version and we expect numerous other existing Eclipse projects do so as well. 6. The Eclipse Foundation is investing in the use of SPDX and since we expect many/most of our projects to update to the new version of the license, having representation in SPDX is critical path. The wrinkle, I think, is that there is a provision in the license for "secondary license" support. A project team may opt to declare that their project code is GPL compatible. I believe that this means that GPL compatibility is an exception; this is compounded by the ability to include various exceptions to the GPL. The OpenJ9 project, for example, will be EPL-2.0 with GPL-2.0+CPE+AE. I think that this would manifest something like this: EPL-2.0 WITH (GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0 WITH Assembly-exception-2.0) I'm a little concerned that I don't see Assembly-exception-2.0 on the exceptions list. I assume that this means that I'll have to shepherd this exception through as well. Is this syntax even supported? FWIW, in a fit of stupidity--after misreading a comment on another issue--I opened a GitHub Issue to track this. Thanks, Wayne -- Wayne Beaton Director of Open Source Projects The Eclipse Foundation _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal -- Wayne Beaton Director of Open Source Projects The Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
