Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations


Richard Fontana
 

We're not specifically planning to use the hypothetical SPDX identifier in source files -- basically we just haven't considered the issue. Currently, I know of one or two Red Hat-maintained projects that are using SPDX identifiers in source files, but we haven't reached the point of generally recommending this; for one of those two projects the desire to use SPDX identifiers came from the developers. 

I think there is a decent chance we will begin recommending use of "SPDX-License-Identifier:" (or, at the very least, SPDX identifiers in source files) at some point in the foreseeable future. On my team we've certainly had a number of discussions about it. I am definitely personally moving towards seeing it as a good idea. However as you can imagine that would be a big step for us :-) If that were to happen, we would certainly want to use the hypothetical future SPDX identifier for GPLCC in source files of those projects adopting GPLCC.

As for using the hypothetical GPLCC identifier in SPDX documents, we currently have no foreseeable plans to generate or make use of SPDX documents, but that too is a topic we continue to explore.

Richard




From: "J Lovejoy" <opensource@...>
To: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana@...>
Cc: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 5:32:34 PM
Subject: Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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