Re: New License/Exception Request

J Lovejoy

Hi Camille,

In the hopes of trying to tie up some loose ends from 2015, i thought I’d reach out to see if you were able to gain any insight as to this issue.

I don’t know if the reference to LGPL-2.0 and LGPL-2.1 is a bar to adding it as an exception to the SPDX License List, but if the authors decided to create a new version to accommodate its use via an accurate reference for LGPL-3.0 or remove the specific clause reference, then we’d consider adding both.

In any case, let me know your thoughts!


SPDX Legal Team co-lead

On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:24 AM, Camille Moulin <cmoulin@...> wrote:

Hi Jilayne,

Thanks very much for your precise analysis of the request.
I'm not involved in the project, but I know some core contributors (in CC) so I should be able to discuss that directly with them.
We'll get back to you ASAP on this.

Thanks again,

Le 09/07/2015 20:21, J Lovejoy a écrit :
HI Camille,

We discussed this on the legal call today and would like to add this
exception but discovered a glitch. The exception text does not
indicate a version of LGPL, but includes the language:

“. . . and distribute that executable file under terms of your
choice, without any of the additional requirements listed in clause 6
of the GNU Library General Public License. By "a publicly distributed
version of the Library", we mean either the unmodified Library as
distributed by INRIA, or a modified version of the Library that is
distributed under the conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU
Library General Public License.”

Note the references to clause 6 and clause 3, which directly align
with LGPL-2.0 and LGPL-2.1. Sure enough, it is LGP-2.0 that is
provided on and most of
the projects (I did not look at all) in the OCaml Github account use
the exception with either LGPL-2.0 or LGPL-2.1

However, at least two projects in the OCaml Github account use the
same exception with LGPL-3.0, which sort of breaks the exception as
it is then referring to a different clause 6 and 3 - see: and

We wondered if this was a mistake or if there were plans to update
the exception. If the latter, then we would be inclined to add both
versions of the exception, but this could then impact the naming
convention (e.g., we’d want to use version numbers in the exception
or some other way to indicate the difference.)

Are involved enough with the project to raise this? Otherwise, I’m
happy to reach out to them directly. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks, Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensource@...

On Jun 30, 2015, at 2:39 AM, Camille Moulin <cmoulin@...>


Please find below the elements for the addition of a new exception
to the SPDX list.

Best regards, Camille

- Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception :
"OCaml linking exception"

- Provide a proposed Short Identifier : "OCaml-exception"

- Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception
text, either from the author or a community recognized source :

- Create and attach a text file with the license or exception text
from the url provided in #3. Please proofread the text file to
ensure that: - Information has not been lost or modified. -
Formatting is clean and consistent with the license or exception
URL. Please see attached file.

- Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No] (see: If yes, provide
link to the OSI license and verify that it is the same text as
supplied in #4. : No

- Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license
or exception to be included on the SPDX License List, including
identifying at least one program that uses this license. :

This exception is currently used in many OCaml packages, which is a
blocker for them to use SPDX in their packaging guidelines (see )

Spdx-legal mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.