~ Steve Winslow [2022-01-10 22:33 +0100]:
> *Proposal*:
>
> REUSE would like to see the combined LGPL-3.0 + GPL-3.0 text used as the
> plain text file for LGPL-3.0 on the License List. That way, anyone pulling
> from the plain text licenses will (correctly) include both the LGPL and GPL
> texts.
>
> To implement this, the XML template for LGPL-3.0 would also be updated, to
> add the GPL-3.0 text with <optional> tags following the non-optional
> LGPL-3.0 text.
>
> Personally, I'm +1 to make these changes:
> * It solves the problem REUSE has identified for their use case
> * It means that the LGPL-3.0-* templates will continue to match standalone
> files with only the LGPL text, as well as matching files that contain the
> combined LGPL+GPL texts.
> * It doesn't resolve all possible ambiguities about "did you mean
> everything in this repo is LGPL, or that some things are LGPL and some are
> GPL?"  But neither does the current state of affairs. Using SPDX short-form
> license IDs and/or standard license headers solves this. So I don't see
> this as particularly significant to this specific proposal.
>
> Please discuss.

Following up on Steve's proposal, I see many people agreeing on it, or
at least shrugging. There has been a proposal by Alexios that would
require a larger rework as I understand it, but it feels not like a
blocker to this concrete proposal, rather like a good idea to make
special cases like these easier to handle in the future.

Are there any more blockers?

Best,
Max

--
Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe
Contact and information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl | @mxmehl
Become a supporter of software freedom:  https://fsfe.org/join