On Mar 23, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Sam Ellis <Sam.Ellis@...> wrote:

Hi,

In relation to the SPDX-LL and exceptions, I note that LGPL-3.0 is listed as a full license (http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/LGPL-3.0.html). However the wording of LGLP-3.0 is such that it does not stand alone; it refers to and depends on GPL-3.0 and uses terms such as "supplemented by the additional permissions" and "Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL". I therefore wish to raise the question of whether LGPL-3.0 should be on the exception list rather than on the full list. Logically, it seems to be an exception, and yet it is such a mainstream license that I can see an argument for it to be on the full license list. Has this been considered previously?

-- 

Sam Ellis (ARM)

-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

I think most people will be confused if they’re looking at the License List and don’t find the LGPL3. 

I might have missed what we consider an exception (didn’t find a definition on the webpage) but I always considered exceptions as small use case exceptions to an existing license.  The LGPL on the other hand seems more than just a small exception to the GPL and like a whole other license. 

To digress a bit more, I always felt it was a marketing strategy to incorporate the GPL so people had to go look and realize there’s a “preferred” license over the LGPL.

Alan Tse

Copyright and Open Source Licensing Director

Western Digital Technologies, Inc.

3355 Michelson Dr., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612

T:  949-672-7759

F:  949-672-6604

From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dennis Clark
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:09 PM
To: J Lovejoy
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?

On Mar 24, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...> wrote:

I agree that the LGPL 3.0 absolutely *should* be on the license list. 

 

--- David A. Wheeler

 

 

From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Alan Tse
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:20 PM
To: Dennis Clark; J Lovejoy
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: RE: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?

 

I think most people will be confused if they’re looking at the License List and don’t find the LGPL3.  

 

I might have missed what we consider an exception (didn’t find a definition on the webpage) but I always considered exceptions as small use case exceptions to an existing license.  The LGPL on the other hand seems more than just a small exception to the GPL and like a whole other license.  

 

To digress a bit more, I always felt it was a marketing strategy to incorporate the GPL so people had to go look and realize there’s a “preferred” license over the LGPL.

 

Alan Tse

Copyright and Open Source Licensing Director

Western Digital Technologies, Inc.

3355 Michelson Dr., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612

T:  949-672-7759

F:  949-672-6604

 

 

From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dennis Clark
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:09 PM
To: J Lovejoy
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?

 

Legal Team,  

 

I think that Sam's points about the LGPL 3.0 are technically correct, but given that OSI treats LGPL 3.0 as a license (http://opensource.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0), I think we can also treat it as "an exception to the exceptions" and continue to include it in our license list.  It has become a very popular license (for mysterious reasons) and I think it would just seem really strange to handle it otherwise.  On the other hand, I'm cautiously open to the alternative view if most of the group prefers to redefine LGPL 3.0 as an Exception.

 

Regards,

Dennis Clark

 

 

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:59 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

Hi Sam,

 

Hmm… great point.  This has not been considered previously and did not really need to be pre-2.0 discussions because the exceptions were not separated out, etc.

 

Our next legal call is on the day we are hoping to go live with 2.0, I think.  So, we can discuss it then (it’s not a lengthy change), but can we get some thoughts on this topic via the email list in the meantime?

 

I think that, technically, this is right and LGPLv3 should probably be on the exception list, instead of listed as a separate license in and of itself.  But that’s just my gut…  

 

thoughts???

 

Jilayne

 

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...

 

On Mar 23, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Sam Ellis <Sam.Ellis@...> wrote:

 

Hi,

 

In relation to the SPDX-LL and exceptions, I note that LGPL-3.0 is listed as a full license (http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/LGPL-3.0.html). However the wording of LGLP-3.0 is such that it does not stand alone; it refers to and depends on GPL-3.0 and uses terms such as "supplemented by the additional permissions" and "Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL". I therefore wish to raise the question of whether LGPL-3.0 should be on the exception list rather than on the full list. Logically, it seems to be an exception, and yet it is such a mainstream license that I can see an argument for it to be on the full license list. Has this been considered previously?

 

-- 

Sam Ellis (ARM)

-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

 

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...> wrote:

J Lovejoy:

GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0 (this feels a bit odd, but it would be accurate technically speaking…) [or]
LGPL-3.0

I strongly believe “LGPL-3.0” is the correct answer. "LGPL-3.0" is much simpler, it's much clearer to non-lawyers, and referring to it as its own name matches historical practice.

In *practice* the LGPL is practically always referred to as its own license, not as a tweak to another license. Historically the LGPL was implemented as a separate license, and the “tweak” is not a small one either (exceptions are usually small). All other license list systems (such as Debian and Fedora's) treat it as a separate license, so there is strong historical precedence to treating it as its own license (if no other reason than backwards compatibility).

--- David A. Wheeler

That is a really good point about the other lists, David.

(good to hear from you again on this list!!)

Jilayne

On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...> wrote:

J Lovejoy:

GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0 (this feels a bit odd, but it would be accurate
technically speaking…) [or]
LGPL-3.0

I strongly believe “LGPL-3.0” is the correct answer. "LGPL-3.0" is
much simpler, it's much clearer to non-lawyers, and referring to it as
its own name matches historical practice.

In *practice* the LGPL is practically always referred to as its own
license, not as a tweak to another license. Historically the LGPL was
implemented as a separate license, and the “tweak” is not a small one
either (exceptions are usually small). All other license list systems
(such as Debian and Fedora's) treat it as a separate license, so there
is strong historical precedence to treating it as its own license (if no
other reason than backwards compatibility).

--- David A. Wheeler

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

On Mar 27, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:10 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:

Hi All,

Let me sum this up, to make sure we are all on the same page.

LGPLv3 will be on the license list - there is no question there. The
question is, now that we have the exceptions listed on their own, should it
be there (http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/exceptions-index.html) or remain
as a "standalone" license on the main list
(http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/)

I don't think there is a "right" answer here... we can be consistent in how
other exceptions are represented or not (ostensibly due to external
considerations). As much as I do prefer consistency, we have already seen
before that trying to apply "rules" in a consistent manner to open source
licenses and how they are represented is almost impossible.

I believe that historically speaking, LGPLv3 was very intentionally drafted
this way with a goal of making it easier to apply and understand (given the
confusion over LGPLv2.1), which sort of cuts towards treating it as a true
exception (Alan's theory very interesting, though!)

So, let's take a look at the two option:

1) To be consistent, it would seem that LGPLv3 is an exception in the same
way as these other exceptions. This would mean it would be listed with the
exceptions and to represent LGPLv3 using the License Expression Syntax would
look like this:
GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0

(this feels a bit odd, but it would be accurate technically speaking...)

This would indeed be accurate but both odd and confusing.

Or,

2) We could simply leave LGPLv3 on the main license list (as if it was a
standalone license) and thus it would be represented as its standalone short
identifier:
LGPL-3.0

(This would be technically inconsistent with how the other exceptions are
represented, but results in an arguably more expected identification via the
short identifier.)

This is IMHO the only sane thing to do. Practically beast purity.

I don't know-- as much as I like consistency and accuracy (#1) - the
resultant license expression syntax of "GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0" feels... wrong.
I'd also be afraid that if we went that route it would be confusing, because
it's not what you'd expect and that the community would, well, freak out
(possibly justifiably). As to the latter concern, I just sent Bradley Kuhn
an email about this to gain his thoughts, since I have spoken to him a bit
about the efforts to improve our list of exceptions. Thus, #2 just "feels"
more appropriate.*sigh*

In the meantime, I'd be curious to hear thoughts what with the syntax
staring at you.

#2 aka LGPL-3.0 is the only thing that makes sense to me.

--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne