Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion


J Lovejoy
 



On Dec 10, 2018, at 8:16 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@...> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 7:47 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...> wrote:

So I think, realistically, the kernel wouldn't ever use this.  Now that
means don't do it, but I think it's legitimate to wonder how many other
projects would have similar problems.

Which leads back to my earlier point that the KES language specifically scopes the additional permission to the Linux kernel, so no one could use it "as-is" for another project. If the kernel community won't use the SPDX identifier, who will use it? If someone does modify their license with an additional permission at the project/file level, I would be more open to discussing adding a reference to the specific language used to enable it. Let's make a reference to the exception they use.

actually, on that note, if a project did want to adopt GPL-3.0 termination clause for L/GPL-2.0 licensed code (whether a new project or existing project), wouldn’t it make more sense to use the GPL-CC for projects, since that has the same intent but was specifically written to be applied in this way?

Jilayne

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