I meant to add: our next legal call is
Thursday, Aug 5th at 10am mountain time.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Happy to dedicate some time then to this topic, if a
live-discussion would help and all interested parties can attend.
On 7/28/21 8:53 AM, J Lovejoy wrote:
On 7/28/21 4:35 AM, Max Mehl wrote:
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.
(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:
The ticket in the reuse-tool is public, the discussions with FSF
In the scope of REUSE we've noticed
[^1] that just providing LPGL-3.0* –
Has this been discussed publicly?
as downloaded from SPDX – in a repo does not suffice as it
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
is now an officially acknowledged license text that contains
LGPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0:
private with John Sullivan and Donald Robertson.
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
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