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

Note: Common Cure Rights Commitment was an earlier name for what Red Hat later ended up branding the GPL Cooperation Commitment. As was pointed out on the call, GPLCC now exists as three

Yes. As I said this is the reason I don't think we'd apply the tag unless it were reliable (i.e. all authors demonstrably agreed). However, there's no current kernel plan for this, it was just

So if I can summarize my the situation we're discussing: 1) The additional permission is from one or more of many authors and would only apply in a situation where that author(s)' code is being

That's absolutely not what I was saying. It obviously has a legal significance for the *file* but to have legal significance to downstream it would have to be present in all (or at least all

James Bottomley wrote: At the beginning here, it seems like you are saying the LinuxEnforcementStatement-1.0 has no legal significance and is not legally binding as an additional permissions. I

[...] I think this is effectively asking if the kernel community would in any way care about codifying the Kernel Enforcement Statement into SPDX. I think the answer is "not really". We already

I know of no such intention and as I explained we have a fairly rigorous SPDX tag change process that makes this very difficult in practice. The current enforcement statement is maintained

James thanks for that explanation it helps me understand the angle you're thinking of using this for much better. Let me ask one follow-up if I may. Is it broadly the intention to change the license

I won't repeat all of your argument, but I think it boils down two two fundamental questions 1. How do you trust the kernel file SPDX tag when it includes a WITH additional permission 2.

Michael Dolan wrote: Indeed, that's precisely what every "additional permission" does (going back to the Bison Exception in the 1980s). So, you've basically stated there the very definition of a

I'm just catching up late on a Friday night and noticed this. I have to say I'm surprised this suddenly went to last call for comments. I guess I missed the prior discussion on the list about this and

If this can help, we have tracked in ScanCode all the 15 known text variations to

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

Hi all, Thanks for a productive call today. I’ve posted a summary of the discussion in the meeting minutes here: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2018-11-29 Please note: there was

just realized this only went to Richard. See corrected meeting time/zones below! Begin forwarded message: From: J Lovejoy <opensource@...> Subject: Re: meeting tomorrow/Thursday Date: November 28,

Should that be 12 noon Eastern time? (or 8am Pacific?)

Hi all, We’ll be back on our regularly scheduled call tomorrow/Thursday at 9am Pacific time / 11am Eastern time / 5pm Central European time. Web conference:

Hi all, Just a reminder that we will not have our regularly scheduled call this week, Nov 15th. Have a good week and/or holiday (if you are in the US) and we’ll resume our normally scheduled

I also updated the landing page on the wiki re: “where we work” - see https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team (there was no mention of Github repo before)