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