Re: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?
|
I agree that the LGPL 3.0 absolutely *should* be on the license list.
--- David A. Wheeler
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Alan Tse
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:20 PM To: Dennis Clark; J Lovejoy Cc: SPDX-legal Subject: RE: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?
I think most people will be confused if they’re looking at the License List and don’t find the LGPL3.
I might have missed what we consider an exception (didn’t find a definition on the webpage) but I always considered exceptions as small use case exceptions to an existing license. The LGPL on the other hand seems more than just a small exception to the GPL and like a whole other license.
To digress a bit more, I always felt it was a marketing strategy to incorporate the GPL so people had to go look and realize there’s a “preferred” license over the LGPL.
Alan Tse Copyright and Open Source Licensing Director Western Digital Technologies, Inc. 3355 Michelson Dr., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 T: 949-672-7759 F: 949-672-6604
From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dennis Clark
Legal Team,
I think that Sam's points about the LGPL 3.0 are technically correct, but given that OSI treats LGPL 3.0 as a license (http://opensource.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0), I think we can also treat it as "an exception to the exceptions" and continue to include it in our license list. It has become a very popular license (for mysterious reasons) and I think it would just seem really strange to handle it otherwise. On the other hand, I'm cautiously open to the alternative view if most of the group prefers to redefine LGPL 3.0 as an Exception.
Regards, Dennis Clark
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:59 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote: Hi Sam,
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…
thoughts???
Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
|
|
|