Hey Max, You wrote: On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:01 AM Max Mehl <max.m...@fsfe.org> wrote: > In the scope of REUSE we've noticed [^1] that just providing LPGL-3.0* – > as downloaded from SPDX – in a repo does not suffice as it requires its > mother license, GPL-3.0*. LGPL could be seen as an exception to GPL, but > it's not treated as such by the FSF. > > Matija and I discussed that with FSF and the different options we have > to suit SPDX, REUSE and other downstreams. We found a compromise: there > is now an officially acknowledged license text that contains both > LGPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl+gpl.txt
Has this been discussed publicly? > Now my request: can we get this combined version into SPDX' license list > data, e.g. [^2]? > [^1]: https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/issues/86 > [^2]: > https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/blob/master/text/LGPL-3.0-or-later.txt I think that you stated explicitly this is not a new license, just a clarification (optional one?) that providing both texts when referencing LGPL-3* is better. How could one ever handle this sanely in practice? If this is not a new license, why would you need a new license identifier? If this is a new license, or a new previsously unstated requirement of the LGPL 3 it would need some wide open and public discussion IMHO. Some examples of the new and updated clarity issues this brings: Say I stumbled on the text at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl+gpl.txt in some project... is this project using the LGPL only or the LGPL and the GPL that apply? It is impossible to disambiguate which one applies short of a statement by the authors that they mean the GPL not to apply but that only the LGPL should be considered there and that the GPL text is there only for reference. What if a project contains both GPL3 and LGPL 3-licensed code? They could use the exact same text as above and I would still not be able to disambiguate short of extra statements. Now say the author added a license identifier in the code saying that this is "LGPL-3.0-only"... did they forget to reference the GPL text in the combined text above? Or is this really just LGPL? Or is some part of the code GPL-licensed but not marked as such? I cannot say for sure either and I would not trust that. I still need some more explicit statements to get clarity. IMHO the status of the LGPL as a self standing text or whether it needs to be accompanied by the GPL text has been a jolly mess of ambiguity since the release of the L/GPL3*. I cannot see how the FSF releasing a text that combines two texts makes it any better, to the contrary: it just adds even more ambiguity and confusion. Even more so if there has been no public discussion on the topic. I cannot fathom how this kind of confusion, uncertainty and doubt is helpful to anyone producing or consuming LGPL-licensed code. -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2951): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2951 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/84501245/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
