Steve, Max: FWIW, I already voiced my objection on this topic in the past and I think this is going to be a source of confusion and ambiguity.
Why would we need to change the SPDX text for the purpose of one tool and convention? Max: Could you not change your text in your tool instead? - I do not think any of the license texts in SPDX have been designed to be used as reference texts; if anything the templating makes them non suitable for this purpose. - If mixing related texts together is the new way to craft a license text, why not also change the texts of the LGPL 2 and 2.1 to include the text of the GPL 2 in them? - Like the LGPL, every other exception of the GPL would technically demand to include a GPL text too... Does this mean that all the exception texts should be updated now? On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 4:06 PM Steve Winslow <swins...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Max, circling back on this thread and your question: > > We briefly discussed this as a follow-up on the last legal team call, and > agreed that there did not appear to be any significant objections to > modifying the LGPL-3.0[-only/-or-later] templates as earlier described here. > I'm planning to submit a PR to incorporate the GPL text as optional in the > templates, so that it'll be included for the next license list release. > > Best, > Steve > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:02 AM Max Mehl <max.m...@fsfe.org> wrote: >> >> ~ Steve Winslow [2022-01-10 22:33 +0100]: >> > *Proposal*: >> > >> > REUSE would like to see the combined LGPL-3.0 + GPL-3.0 text used as the >> > plain text file for LGPL-3.0 on the License List. That way, anyone pulling >> > from the plain text licenses will (correctly) include both the LGPL and GPL >> > texts. >> > >> > To implement this, the XML template for LGPL-3.0 would also be updated, to >> > add the GPL-3.0 text with <optional> tags following the non-optional >> > LGPL-3.0 text. >> > >> > Personally, I'm +1 to make these changes: >> > * It solves the problem REUSE has identified for their use case >> > * It means that the LGPL-3.0-* templates will continue to match standalone >> > files with only the LGPL text, as well as matching files that contain the >> > combined LGPL+GPL texts. >> > * It doesn't resolve all possible ambiguities about "did you mean >> > everything in this repo is LGPL, or that some things are LGPL and some are >> > GPL?" But neither does the current state of affairs. Using SPDX short-form >> > license IDs and/or standard license headers solves this. So I don't see >> > this as particularly significant to this specific proposal. >> > >> > Please discuss. >> >> Following up on Steve's proposal, I see many people agreeing on it, or >> at least shrugging. There has been a proposal by Alexios that would >> require a larger rework as I understand it, but it feels not like a >> blocker to this concrete proposal, rather like a good idea to make >> special cases like these easier to handle in the future. >> >> Are there any more blockers? >> >> Best, >> Max -- Cordially Philippe -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3097): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3097 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/88334638/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
