Re: Combined version of LGPL + GPL 3.0

J Lovejoy

On 7/28/21 4:35 AM, Max Mehl wrote:
Hi Philippe,

(I mistyped the spdx-tech address, fixed here)

~ Philippe Ombredanne [2021-07-28 12:04 +0200]:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:01 AM Max Mehl <max.mehl@...> wrote:
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:
Has this been discussed publicly?
The ticket in the reuse-tool is public, the discussions with FSF were
private with John Sullivan and Donald Robertson.
This is a problem. We already went down this road with having back-and-forth conversations with FSF (by way of Richard Stallman and John Sullivan) in 2018 when Richard Stallman wanted us to change the identifiers to be more clear about -only and -or-later. The mode of communication ended up being a mixture of off-list and on-list, which I never was very comfortable with and which made for a lot of extra work. I'm not in favor of repeating that.

If there is something that the FSF, REUSE, or any other community wants addressed related to SPDX identifiers, that conversation needs to begin here - on the open mailing list which anyone can join and for which all the archives are available.

I have copied John and Don on this email directly so they are aware.

I have moved the tech team to bcc - for general awareness, as any such change could impact tooling. Once a conversation is kicked off on this list, we can pull the tech team in at the appropriate time.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.