Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Topics Expanded Polls

Export Group Data

Between

and

Re: Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

I think that a KES Exception on the SPDX list should consist only of the three indented paragraphs in the text at

By Dennis Clark · #2466 ·

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

Hi folks, I'm a little late to this discussion, but I think I should weigh in. To me this discussion is very odd, at least from the context of the Kernel Enforcement Statement. I don't think it

By Grant Likely · #2465 ·

Linux kernel enforcement statement discussion

Hi all, I was hoping that others long-standing members of the SPDX legal community would jump in on this thread, but a few days have gone by now and no further discussion, so let me summarize some

By J Lovejoy · #2464 ·

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

Hi Richard, Let me try to answer, since I was the one who did the "unifying" markup. Our goal is obviously to match the three GPLCC variants and (ideally) not match anything else. Unfortunately, the

By Alexios Zavras · #2463 ·

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

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

By Richard Fontana · #2462 ·

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

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

By Richard Fontana · #2461 ·

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

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

By James Bottomley · #2460 ·

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

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

By Michael Dolan · #2459 ·

Re: Plan to add Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement to SPDX additional permissions list

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

By James Bottomley · #2458 ·

Re: Plan to add Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement to SPDX additional permissions list

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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #2457 ·

Re: Plan to add Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement to SPDX additional permissions list (Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment)

[...] 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

By James Bottomley · #2456 ·

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

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

By James Bottomley · #2455 ·

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

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

By Michael Dolan · #2454 ·

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

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.

By James Bottomley · #2453 ·

Plan to add Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement to SPDX additional permissions list (Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment)

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

By Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@...> · #2452 ·

Re: meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

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

By Michael Dolan · #2451 ·

Re: GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

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

By Philippe Ombredanne · #2450 ·

GPL Cooperation Commitment variations

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

By J Lovejoy · #2449 ·

meeting minutes: Linux kernel enforcement statement / GPL Cooperation Commitment

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

By J Lovejoy · #2448 ·

meeting tomorrow/Thursday

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,

By J Lovejoy · #2447 ·

941 - 960 of 3406

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms