Thanks for discussing this issue. I agree that asking the ANTLR 2 people might be helpful to learn more about the history of the license and what they consider appropriate.
Best, Till Am 23.06.20 um 23:40 schrieb Alan Tse: > Why don’t we reach out since they’re the license steward to see if they’d > prefer an update vs two separate licenses? > > > > *From: *<Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> on behalf of Steve Winslow > <swins...@linuxfoundation.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 2:00 PM > *To: *Bradlee Edmondson <brad.edmond...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *"jae...@jbb.de" <jae...@jbb.de>, SPDX-legal <Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> > *Subject: *Re: ANTLR-PD > > > > *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 Brad, it's a good point and I was considering that too. I guess my one > question would be whether there are other projects that have used the > original vs. the later version of the license, beyond ANTLR. > > > > Since it's the ANTLR project and the ANTLR-PD license, if they're the only > ones who have used it -- and if they're not even using it anymore for new > versions -- personally I'd feel comfortable with adding it via markup and > perhaps including an explanatory sentence in the Notes so that people are > aware. Rather than adding a new separate identifier. But this is just a gut > reaction, I don't feel especially strongly about it. Open to others' > thoughts of course :) > > > > Best, > > Steve > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:42 PM Brad Edmondson <brad.edmond...@gmail.com > <mailto:brad.edmond...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Thanks Till for reporting the issue and Steve for looking into it. > > > > My first reaction would be that the two texts, ANTLR with additional > license and ANTLR without, are legally different licenses (with > different effects which are important for the reasons Till mentioned), > and should therefore be added as a new version of the ANTLR license > rather than added as optional matching text to the original. > > > > What do others think? > > > > Best, > > Brad > > -- > > Brad Edmondson, /Esq./ > 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com <mailto:brad.edmond...@gmail.com> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Steve Winslow > <swins...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:swins...@linuxfoundation.org>> > wrote: > > Hi Till -- taking a closer look, it seems that the language you > cited was added to the original ANTLR 2 license sometime later, > which is probably why it isn't in the license list version. > > > > Looking at the Wayback Machine, > > http://web.archive.org/web/20130401024631/https://www.antlr2.org/license.html > > <http://web.archive.org/web/20130401024631/https:/www.antlr2.org/license.html> > shows that at least as of April 2013 the ANTLR 2 License did not > include that additional paragraph. I haven't done a deeper dive yet > to figure out when it was subsequently added. > > > > Given that, I'd be inclined to add it to the ANTLR-PD markup but to > mark it as optional, so that it would match whether or not that > paragraph is present. > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:33 AM Steve Winslow via lists.spdx.org > <http://lists.spdx.org> <swinslow=linuxfoundation....@lists.spdx.org > <mailto:linuxfoundation....@lists.spdx.org>> wrote: > > Thanks for flagging this, Till. I've added an issue in the > license-list-XML repo to track this at > https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1056. > > > > I don't know the history of this one myself, but it looks like > that language had been omitted prior to when the license list > was first brought into source control (see > > https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/commits/master/src/ANTLR-PD.xml). > I expect it should be added into the ANTLR-PD markup for the > reasons you mentioned. > > > > Best, > > Steve > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:33 AM Till Jaeger via lists.spdx.org > <http://lists.spdx.org> <jaeger=jbb...@lists.spdx.org > <mailto:jbb...@lists.spdx.org>> wrote: > > Hello list, > > I just found out that there is a deviation from > https://spdx.org/licenses/ANTLR-PD.html#licenseText to the > linked text from > http://www.antlr2.org/license.html which contains the > following language: > > "In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may > not be valid, > the author grants a copyright licence to the general public > to deal in the > work without restriction and permission to sublicence > derivates under the > terms of any (OSI approved) Open Source licence." > > From the perspective from EU law this is an extremely > important part since > it makes clear that a unrestricted license is intended if PD > does not work. > This avoids (always disputable) interpretation of the PD text. > > Is there any reason for the omission? Could the text be added? > > Best regards, > > Till > > -- > Dr. Till Jaeger > Certified Copyright and Media Law Attorney > > > JBB Rechtsanwälte > Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB > Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin > Tel. +49.30.443 765 0 | Fax +49.30.443 765 22 > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG > Charlottenburg | PR 609 B > www.jbb.de <http://www.jbb.de> > > > > > -- > > Steve Winslow > Director of Strategic Programs > The Linux Foundation > > swins...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:swins...@linuxfoundation.org> > > > > -- > > Steve Winslow > Director of Strategic Programs > The Linux Foundation > > swins...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:swins...@linuxfoundation.org> > > > > -- > > Steve Winslow > Director of Strategic Programs > The Linux Foundation > > swins...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:swins...@linuxfoundation.org> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2845): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2845 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/75056685/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
