Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

J Lovejoy

Hi Max,

Do I understand correctly that FSF still doesn't think of LGPL-3.0 as an exception to GPL-3.0 (even though functionally and structurally it is) and thus wants us all now to identify LGPL-3.0 as a conjunctive license expression, using and?

If that is the case, then I don't see what needs to be added to the SPDX License List, as AND works with any two (or more) licenses.

What is the implication of just LGPL-3.0 at this point, then? What happens in terms of backward compatibility for everyone already using that identifier?

I appreciate you looking into this, but it really would have helped to be involved.

As had been discussed here before, LGPL more aptly belongs on the exceptions list to be used with the WITH operator. 

In any case, any change like this is not inconsequential for existing users of SPDX and all scenarios need to be fully discussed (as we learned last time we made a major change in our identifiers for the FSF). Is this change initiated by REUSE or FSF?

Happy to have a chat offline to understand more of the background, if need be, so we can better identify the right path forward.


(have not read other responses yet)

On 7/28/21 3:01 AM, Max Mehl wrote:

Hi all,

In the scope of REUSE we've noticed [^1] that just providing LPGL-3.0* –
as downloaded from SPDX – in a repo does not suffice as it requires its
mother license, GPL-3.0*. LGPL could be seen as an exception to GPL, but
it's not treated as such by the FSF.

Matija and I discussed that with FSF and the different options we have
to suit SPDX, REUSE and other downstreams. We found a compromise: there
is now an officially acknowledged license text that contains both
LGPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0:

Now my request: can we get this combined version into SPDX' license list
data, e.g. [^2]?




Join { to automatically receive all group messages.