Re: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?
|
J Lovejoy
Hi All,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Let me sum this up, to make sure we are all on the same page. LGPLv3 will be on the license list - there is no question there. The question is, now that we have the exceptions listed on their own, should it be there (http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/exceptions-index.html) or remain as a “standalone” license on the main list (http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/) I don’t think there is a “right” answer here… we can be consistent in how other exceptions are represented or not (ostensibly due to external considerations). As much as I do prefer consistency, we have already seen before that trying to apply “rules” in a consistent manner to open source licenses and how they are represented is almost impossible. I believe that historically speaking, LGPLv3 was very intentionally drafted this way with a goal of making it easier to apply and understand (given the confusion over LGPLv2.1), which sort of cuts towards treating it as a true exception (Alan’s theory very interesting, though!) So, let’s take a look at the two option: 1) To be consistent, it would seem that LGPLv3 is an exception in the same way as these other exceptions. This would mean it would be listed with the exceptions and to represent LGPLv3 using the License Expression Syntax would look like this: GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0 (this feels a bit odd, but it would be accurate technically speaking…) Or, 2) We could simply leave LGPLv3 on the main license list (as if it was a standalone license) and thus it would be represented as its standalone short identifier: LGPL-3.0 (This would be technically inconsistent with how the other exceptions are represented, but results in an arguably more expected identification via the short identifier.) I don’t know— as much as I like consistency and accuracy (#1) - the resultant license expression syntax of “GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0” feels… wrong. I’d also be afraid that if we went that route it would be confusing, because it’s not what you’d expect and that the community would, well, freak out (possibly justifiably). As to the latter concern, I just sent Bradley Kuhn an email about this to gain his thoughts, since I have spoken to him a bit about the efforts to improve our list of exceptions. Thus, #2 just “feels” more appropriate.*sigh* In the meantime, I’d be curious to hear thoughts what with the syntax staring at you. Cheers, Jilayne PS let me just make the prediction right now, that either way, three years from now someone new will point this out and one of us will have to remember this discussion… note: whatever we decide should be summarized somewhere and include a note in the license Notes field...
|
|
|