1. posterid:1160316
  2. Messages

Re: New Exception Request: GPL Cooperation Commitment 1.0

J Lovejoy
 

Hi Richard, all,

I have not had a chance to post the minutes from today’s call, but this conversation is something we touched upon in terms of planning for post-3.3 release.

I agree that it would be productive to discuss these at the same time, as well as the larger issue of potentially revising the description (and possibly name) of the “exceptions”. I’d like to “schedule” that discussion for a particular call to ensure we have all the key relevant parties, which I consider to include you, Bradley and/or Karen, as well as someone from Google (we also need to deal with the Google patent grant), and the usual SPDX legal folks, of course.

Our next call is Nov 1st, but it doesn’t sound like that will work for Bradley and is quite soon. I may need to cancel the Nov 15th call due to me being unavailable

Thus, can we all aim for the Nov 29th call? Of course, happy to carry on the discussion on the mailing list in the meantime.


Thanks,
Jilayne

On Oct 18, 2018, at 2:03 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@...> wrote:

I previously wrote, referring to
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655

as Bradley Kuhn says in a comment to that issue, "drafted somewhat
differently and therefore presumably should be analyzed differently
so as not to conflate apples and oranges".
On further thought, there are actually more underlying similarities
than differences between these two exceptions. I believe it would be
productive for them to be considered and discussed at the same time.

Re-reading the GitHub issue, I remembered that this list had an
earlier thread about whether an SPDX identifier would be appropriate
for the commitment texts published by Red Hat and other companies at
the launch of what we now call the GPL Cooperation Commitment
initiative. Since that time, the GPL Cooperation Commitment has been
slightly expanded to include a form suitable for inclusion in source
trees, much as the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement is included in
the kernel source tree.

Bradley, given that, what are your feelings on this at this point?
Would you be comfortable at this point considering them together?

Richard
Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.