On Jun 11, 2015, at 4:15 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

The meetings have been posted here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-06-11

We did not get through all of the questions on exceptions. Some of the outstanding questions may be resolvable via email are included here and have been highlighted in yellow in the Google tracking worksheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0) 

Please respond via email regarding the following:

1. Libtool exception - should text be just exception text, or the full notice as seen here? (because the exception text is sort of wedged in between the usual GPL header) http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libtool.git/tree/m4/libtool.m4
2. Nokia Qt LGPL exception 1.1 - confirmed that Nokia has a version number for exception, so keep "1.1", but the short identifier we have is not very short, can we shorten to: Qt-exception-1.1 or Qt-LGPL-exception-1.1 or Nokia-Qt-exception-1.1 or ??
3. Qwt-exception-1.0 - add markup for project name at end of exception text?

Questions to consider re: exceptions already on list:

• WxWindows- the text in the exception we have versus what is on the OSI site is not the same!! The only differences are: we have "3.1" instead of "3.0" in the first clause; and "your" instead of "the user's" in the second clause. See http://opensource.org/licenses/WXwindows and http://spdx.org/licenses/WxWindows-exception-3.1.html - what we have is consistent with what is here: https://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/
  • should we accommodate this difference somehow? If so, due to this already being on the license list, this seems like it should be a priority to resolve for v2.1 release
• Bison-exception-2.2 - I couldn’t figure out why we had “2.2” and then I found this: https://github.com/stedolan/jq/blob/master/parser.c  I also downloaded Bison 2.2 and 2.3 and could not find the exception anywhere in either version - ?? anyone have any thoughts on this? 
• Classpath-exception-2.0 - why do we have 2.0 and the note saying it’s typically used with GPL-2.0? the Fedora example has it being used with all GPL versions and there doesn’t seem to have other versions. worth removing the “2.0” in the short identifier?

REMINDER: Tuesday, 16 June @ 11am Mtn time, there is a joint Tech / Legal team call on the definitions of NONE and NOASSERTION in the spec. More info will be sent for review prior to the meeting

Cheers,

Jilayne

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal