Alexios, Jilayne: IMHO it would be a good time to revisit this. The case of license identifier does not and never did really matter otherwise. It does not matter to users. And most tools do not

Sebastian, When you say "Nothing similar had been brought up before" are you talking about the inclusion of GPL text inside the LGPL one? Because the whole thing "LGPL is an exception" and "needs

Hi Jilayne, You can refresh your memory on the discussions (2015-2020) by readinghttps://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/63😉 I still like my example from that thread: Do we really want to

I think I may have received this email in error. -- James L. Royer 275 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 E: jroyer6308@... | P: (415) 685-7030

Dear Jilayne, Things have been moving really quickly on this, so I think I ought to give some background! I believe this to be a complete summary, though of course I don't know of the content of the

Hi Legal, Tech teams, I just want to clarify my understanding of capitalization sensitivity for SPDX license ids and license expression operators: Appendix IV states:

Quoting Max Mehl (2021-07-28 17:56:41) Seems to me that these views are not contradictory but describes different matters: * SPDX lingo describes which licensing has been granted * REUSE wants to

~ J Lovejoy [2021-07-28 17:34 +0200]: From my understanding, they did not want to treat LGPL-3.0 as an exception to GPL-3.0. So they turned down "GPL-3.0* WITH LGPL-3.0*". "GPL-3.0 AND LGPL-3.0" as

Hi Max On 7/28/21 9:08 AM, Max Mehl wrote: to clarify: the FSF turned down GPL-3.0* WITH LGPL-3.0* or GPL-3.0* AND LGPL-3.0* (as you understand it, not asking you to

I meant to add: our next legal call is Thursday, Aug 5th at 10am mountain time. Happy to dedicate some time then to this topic, if a live-discussion would help and all interested

Hi Jilayne, (Taking out -tech as per earlier request) ~ J Lovejoy [2021-07-28 16:36 +0200]: Yes, that was a suggestion made by Matija in the discussion we've had. It was turned down by FSF. We

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

Hi Max, Do I understand correctly that FSF still doesn't think of LGPL-3.0 as an exception to GPL-3.0 (even though functionally and structurally it is) and thus wants us all now

~ Alexios Zavras [2021-07-28 13:09 +0200]: OK, sorry for including them then. They added this as an additional format on the lgpl page

I think this has nothing to do with spdx-tech and it's probably best addressed by opening a ticket at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues. I think we could have the LGPL-3.0* texts be the

Hi Philippe, (I mistyped the spdx-tech address, fixed here) ~ Philippe Ombredanne [2021-07-28 12:04 +0200]: The ticket in the reuse-tool is public, the discussions with FSF were private with John

Hey Max, You wrote: Has this been discussed publicly? I think that you stated explicitly this is not a new license, just a clarification (optional one?) that providing both texts when referencing

Hi all, 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

Hi SPDX-legal, I've been chatting to some of the Fedora folks about adopting the use of SPDX license identifiers in its package spec files. I just posted a comment/ proposal to