On 2018-12-11 12:19, J Lovejoy wrote:
Am I missing something here on the urgency aspect or did I sort of create the urgency by tagging it for the 3.4 release?
I proposed this because there was a strong consensus to add the KES to the exceptions list during an open discussion by the full attendance to the LLW meeting in April in Barcelona. I took the action item publicly there on the spot, noting that you were sorely missed from that event. That meeting was held under CHR and was invitation only, so it was absolutely necessary to have had the opportunity to discuss on this list and on the call and the strong consensus at LLW is just one additional data point.
Before all that, Philippe Ombredanne had already proposed KES for the list in November 2017, so it's well over a year in consideration. I think the urgency is just frustration that the discussion has been going on for so long over such an important exception. It looked to me after this year of discussion, that nearly everyone agreed it was right to add the KES to the list.
It seems to me SPDX should be responsive to changes in licensing in the wild. This phenomenon of "backporting parts of GPLv3 to GPLv2 as additional permission" can easily be called a serious industry trend. I (and many others) would like to be able to point to SPDX's license list and its exception list as a definitive way to express licenses that are operative in the real world. There are real copyrights and real files in Linux that are under "GPL-2.0-only WITH KES-Exception", so we need to list the KES to be able to describe the license of those works using SPDX.
karen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2474): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2474 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/28714103/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
