Richard,

You stated:

If SPDX adopts an identifier solely for the Project variant,
let's say "GPLCC-1.0", we'd be happy to use that as an abbreviation
for all three variants on https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc and other
informational and promotional materials.

But, is Red Hat intending on using the SPDX identifier in source files of Red Hat projects that have adopted the project variant or SPDX documents?


Jilayne

On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:51 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@...> wrote:

I've thought further about the issue of whether GPLCC, as a possible
future SPDX exception identifier, should cover the three GPLCC
variants (Corporate, Indivdiual and Project), as seemed to be the
consensus on the recent call, or whether instead it should just refer
to the Project version (which was my original proposal).

There's an argument that someone might want to use a convenient SPDX
identifier to reference the non-Project variants when annotating some
source code wholly or partially covered by one of those
commitments. (This is related to some of the arguments Bradley has
been making in connection with the Kernel Enforcement Statement, I
think.) I suspect this will be unlikely, but who knows?

My concern though is the effort to use markup to generalize the
textual differences among the three variants might have the
problematic effect (from Red Hat's perspective) that some unknown set
of additional variants, unauthorized by the GPLCC initiative, could
match to the GPLCC SPDX identifier. To put it simply, I see value in
an SPDX identifier for GPLCC if the identifier can be mapped to from
the three official GPLCC variants, but I see no value in the
possibility of anything else matching GPLCC. I am not clear on whether
the markup can be crafted so precisely that it could only match the
three documents in question. I think the problem I am highlighting
would be tolerable if we (Red Hat) actually cared about having an
identifier for the Corporate and Individual variants, but we really
don't. If SPDX adopts an identifier solely for the Project variant,
let's say "GPLCC-1.0", we'd be happy to use that as an abbreviation
for all three variants on https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc and other
informational and promotional materials.

Richard






On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:54:08AM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote:

Hi all,

I know I just wrote in the minutes that this task was on Richard F, but I was too curious not to have a cursory look myself!

Attached is a compare of the project to corporate variant; and of the individual to project variant. The main difference seem to be:
- in the use of pronouns (I, We, name of coroporation) - easily accommodated with markup.
- likewise, the associated definition of We or the corporation name, or the absence of a definition for individual at the end
- likewise, lead-in text for the individual version clarifying it only applies to their sole copyright
- there is also an additional term that the corporate variant has about the ability to modify the commitment by posting a new edition - this is not included at all in the project or individual variants. I think this could be omitable in some way? if a cooperation did make a modified version, then it would not match


Interested to hear other thoughts. This will still need some expert markup attention!!


Jilayne