toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hmm… great point. This has not been considered previously and did not really need to be pre-2.0 discussions because the exceptions were not separated out, etc.
Our next legal call is on the day we are hoping to go live with 2.0, I think. So, we can discuss it then (it’s not a lengthy change), but can we get some thoughts on this topic via the email list in the meantime?
I think that, technically, this is right and LGPLv3 should probably be on the exception list, instead of listed as a separate license in and of itself. But that’s just my gut…
-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents
to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
In relation to the SPDX-LL and exceptions, I note that LGPL-3.0 is listed as a full license (http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/LGPL-3.0.html
). However the wording of LGLP-3.0 is such that it does not stand alone; it refers to and depends on GPL-3.0 and
uses terms such as "supplemented by the additional permissions" and "Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL". I therefore wish to raise the question of whether LGPL-3.0 should be on the exception list rather than on the full list. Logically, it seems to be
an exception, and yet it is such a mainstream license that I can see an argument for it to be on the full license list. Has this been considered previously?
ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782
Spdx-legal mailing listSpdx-legal@...