Re: minutes and v2.1 remaining questions
Thanks for the feedback Dennis!toggle quoted message Show quoted text
Can I get a few more comments today - would be nice to have a forum to be comfortable adding/resolving these things for 2.1
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
On Jun 11, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Dennis Clark <dmclark@...> wrote:Jilayne, Legal Team,My thoughts regarding these issues:
- Libtool exception -- I think the text we provide should be the exception text only, especially considering that the full notice text might vary somewhat in practice.
- I suggest that we change the short identifier to your third choice: "Nokia-Qt-exception-1.1". Keep in mind that the exception text could be altered by future owners of Nokia and/or Qt, so I think "Nokia" is valuable here.
- Qwt-exception-1.0 -- I do not think that markup for project name at the end of the exception text is necessary.Jilayne, thanks for making the push to complete these.Regards,Dennis ClarknexB Inc.On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:15 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:The meetings have been posted here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-06-11We 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:
- 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
- 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 ??
- 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 meetingCheers,Jilayne
Spdx-legal mailing list