1. Spdx
  2. Topics

license name question

Bob Gobeille
 

I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the name would be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???

Here is the code license notice:
/****************************************************************************************
* Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...> *
* (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...> *
* *
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under *
* the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software *
* Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) version 3 or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined in Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license. *
* *
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY *
* WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A *
* PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. *
* *
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with *
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. *
****************************************************************************************/


Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
(http://fossology.org)

Armijn Hemel <armijn@...>
 

On 05/25/2011 05:34 PM, Bob Gobeille wrote:
I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the name would be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
I've never heard of GPLv2.1, but if you mean LGPLv2.1, the KDE project has a similar license for that too.

Basically this license says:

"KDE e.V. currently only approves GPLv2 or GPLv3, but if the members of KDE e.V. approve a newer version, then that license is OK for this code too"

armijn

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
armijn@... || http://www.gpl-violations.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
 

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later.
THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!)

As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is reserving the
right to approve future versions of the GPL for use as the license for this
code, which seems different to me than an exception. I understand it to be
saying - 'if there's a GPL v4, we want the chance to check that out and
accept or not accecpt it instead of preemptively saying we'll accept a
license before it has even been written.' Makes sense and seems reasonable,
actually.

I guess I would think of this as different than an exception, since usually
an exception usually adds or modifies the terms of the original license,
which I suppose this does in a way, but in a different way than we usually
think of?

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 9:34 AM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:

I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE
exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the name would
be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???

Here is the code license notice:
/*****************************************************************************
***********
* Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...>
*
* (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...>
*
*
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under *
* the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software *
* Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) version 3
or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor
approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined in
Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license.
*
*
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
ANY *
* WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS
FOR A *
* PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
*
*
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
with *
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*

******************************************************************************
**********/


Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
(http://fossology.org)
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Bob Gobeille
 

doh!
Thank you and Armijn for straightening me out.

So would a reasonable license name be "GPL-2+-KDE" ?

Bob Gobeille

On May 25, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later.
THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!)

As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is reserving the
right to approve future versions of the GPL for use as the license for this
code, which seems different to me than an exception. I understand it to be
saying - 'if there's a GPL v4, we want the chance to check that out and
accept or not accecpt it instead of preemptively saying we'll accept a
license before it has even been written.' Makes sense and seems reasonable,
actually.

I guess I would think of this as different than an exception, since usually
an exception usually adds or modifies the terms of the original license,
which I suppose this does in a way, but in a different way than we usually
think of?

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 9:34 AM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:

I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE
exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the name would
be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???

Here is the code license notice:
/*****************************************************************************
***********
* Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...>
*
* (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...>
*
*
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under *
* the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software *
* Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) version 3
or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor
approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined in
Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license.
*
*
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
ANY *
* WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS
FOR A *
* PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
*
*
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
with *
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*

******************************************************************************
**********/


Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
(http://fossology.org)
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lamons@...>
 

This is the way I read it as well. However I don't know why they wouldn't just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your option) any later version..." which seems completely unnecessary and forces you into effectively dealing with a non-standard license in SPDX.

My 2 cents.

-Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:44 AM
To: Gobeille, Robert; spdx@...
Subject: Re: license name question

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later.
THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!)

As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is reserving
the
right to approve future versions of the GPL for use as the license for
this
code, which seems different to me than an exception. I understand it
to be
saying - 'if there's a GPL v4, we want the chance to check that out and
accept or not accecpt it instead of preemptively saying we'll accept a
license before it has even been written.' Makes sense and seems
reasonable,
actually.

I guess I would think of this as different than an exception, since
usually
an exception usually adds or modifies the terms of the original
license,
which I suppose this does in a way, but in a different way than we
usually
think of?

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 9:34 AM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:

I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE
exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the
name would
be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the
protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???

Here is the code license notice:
/**********************************************************************
*******
***********
* Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...>
*
* (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...>
*
*
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it
under *
* the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free
Software *
* Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
version 3
or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its
successor
approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined
in
Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license.
*
*
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT
ANY *
* WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS
FOR A *
* PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more
details.
*
*
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along
with *
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*

***********************************************************************
*******
**********/


Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
(http://fossology.org)
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx

Armijn Hemel <armijn@...>
 

On 05/25/2011 05:51 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) wrote:
This is the way I read it as well. However I don't know why they wouldn't just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your option) any later version..." which seems completely unnecessary and forces you into effectively dealing with a non-standard license in SPDX.
Because KDE e.V. is a German non-profit and its members like to have endless meetings ;-)

Kidding aside, this license change came a few years ago because they went through a lot of pain when they wanted to relicense some code. The KDE project spent 1.5 years trying to track down five copyright holders for this license change. They did not respond for a variety of reasons ('dropped off the planet', 'dead', etc.) and KDE did not want to ever go through a similar painful process in the future, so this was part of their solution.

(more details available from Adriaan de Groot from KDE)

armijn

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
armijn@... || http://www.gpl-violations.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

dmg
 

Hi Bob, Scott, Jilayne, Armijn,

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program
Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
This is the way I read it as well.  However I don't know why they wouldn't just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your option) any later version..."  which seems completely unnecessary and forces you into effectively dealing with a non-standard license in SPDX.
We (as in Ninka) decided to consider this a (GPLv2 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause). It can also be considered: (GPLv2 | GPLv3 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause) from a practical point of view
that would simplify analysis. It is not a GPLv2+ or (GPLv2| GPLv3+)
since the upgrade path is different (in the former one the KDE
foundation decides the upgrade path, in the latter the FSF).

--dmg


My 2 cents.

-Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:44 AM
To: Gobeille, Robert; spdx@...
Subject: Re: license name question

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later.
THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!)

As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is reserving
the
right to approve future versions of the GPL for use as the license for
this
code, which seems different to me than an exception.  I understand it
to be
saying - 'if there's a GPL v4, we want the chance to check that out and
accept or not accecpt it instead of preemptively saying we'll accept a
license before it has even been written.' Makes sense and seems
reasonable,
actually.

I guess I would think of this as different than an exception, since
usually
an exception usually adds or modifies the terms of the original
license,
which I suppose this does in a way, but in a different way than we
usually
think of?

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 9:34 AM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:

I just ran into the following license.  It is  GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE
exception.  Note the absence of GPLv2.1.  If 2.1 was included, the
name would
be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the
protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???

Here is the code license notice:
/**********************************************************************
*******
***********
 * Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...>
*
 *           (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...>
*
 *
*
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it
under        *
 * the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free
Software        *
 * Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
version 3
or        *
 * any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its
successor
approved  *
 * by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined
in
Section 14 of  *
 * version 3 of the license.
*
 *
*
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT
ANY      *
 * WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS
FOR A      *
 * PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more
details.
*
 *
*
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along
with         *
 * this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*

***********************************************************************
*******
**********/


Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
  (http://fossology.org)
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy |  Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545  |  phone
720 240 4556  |  fax
1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx


--
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org

Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy@...>
 

Daniel, et al.

By "KDEupgradeClause" you are referring to the previous posts re: KDE
reserving the right to decide on post-v3 versions of GPL as well, is that
right?

I suppose from the standpoint of our current SPDX license list short and the
spec guidelines, Daniel has a good point and my previous suggestion that it
would be "GPLv2+" (I know, that is not the exact correct short identifier,
but for expediency purposes...) is not exactly right, but more accuratly, it
would be: a disjunctive set of GPLv2 or GPLv3

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 10:35 AM, "Daniel M. German" <dmg@...> wrote:

Hi Bob, Scott, Jilayne, Armijn,

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program
Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
This is the way I read it as well.  However I don't know why they wouldn't
just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your option)
any later version..."  which seems completely unnecessary and forces you into
effectively dealing with a non-standard license in SPDX.
We (as in Ninka) decided to consider this a (GPLv2 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause). It can also be considered: (GPLv2 | GPLv3 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause) from a practical point of view
that would simplify analysis. It is not a GPLv2+ or (GPLv2| GPLv3+)
since the upgrade path is different (in the former one the KDE
foundation decides the upgrade path, in the latter the FSF).

--dmg


My 2 cents.

-Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:44 AM
To: Gobeille, Robert; spdx@...
Subject: Re: license name question

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later.
THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!)

As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is reserving
the
right to approve future versions of the GPL for use as the license for
this
code, which seems different to me than an exception.  I understand it
to be
saying - 'if there's a GPL v4, we want the chance to check that out and
accept or not accecpt it instead of preemptively saying we'll accept a
license before it has even been written.' Makes sense and seems
reasonable,
actually.

I guess I would think of this as different than an exception, since
usually
an exception usually adds or modifies the terms of the original
license,
which I suppose this does in a way, but in a different way than we
usually
think of?

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 9:34 AM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:

I just ran into the following license.  It is  GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE
exception.  Note the absence of GPLv2.1.  If 2.1 was included, the
name would
be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the
protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???

Here is the code license notice:
/**********************************************************************
*******
***********
 * Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...>
*
 *           (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...>
*
 *
*
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it
under        *
 * the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free
Software        *
 * Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
version 3
or        *
 * any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its
successor
approved  *
 * by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined
in
Section 14 of  *
 * version 3 of the license.
*
 *
*
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT
ANY      *
 * WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS
FOR A      *
 * PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more
details.
*
 *
*
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along
with         *
 * this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*

***********************************************************************
*******
**********/


Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
  (http://fossology.org)
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy |  Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545  |  phone
720 240 4556  |  fax
1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Bob Gobeille
 

I brought this up because it is a new signature in FOSSology and I'd like the name to be as close to the SPDX guidelines as possible. I really like Daniel's method of identifying disjunctive licenses, but I don't see that syntax in the SPDX guideline.

Would "GPL-2+-KDEupgradeClause" convey appropriate meaning? Or maybe I should use Daniel's name until this is formalized or added to the license list?

Bob

On May 25, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:

Daniel, et al.

By "KDEupgradeClause" you are referring to the previous posts re: KDE
reserving the right to decide on post-v3 versions of GPL as well, is that
right?

I suppose from the standpoint of our current SPDX license list short and the
spec guidelines, Daniel has a good point and my previous suggestion that it
would be "GPLv2+" (I know, that is not the exact correct short identifier,
but for expediency purposes...) is not exactly right, but more accuratly, it
would be: a disjunctive set of GPLv2 or GPLv3

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 10:35 AM, "Daniel M. German" <dmg@...> wrote:

Hi Bob, Scott, Jilayne, Armijn,

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program
Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
This is the way I read it as well. However I don't know why they wouldn't
just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your option)
any later version..." which seems completely unnecessary and forces you into
effectively dealing with a non-standard license in SPDX.
We (as in Ninka) decided to consider this a (GPLv2 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause). It can also be considered: (GPLv2 | GPLv3 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause) from a practical point of view
that would simplify analysis. It is not a GPLv2+ or (GPLv2| GPLv3+)
since the upgrade path is different (in the former one the KDE
foundation decides the upgrade path, in the latter the FSF).

--dmg


My 2 cents.

-Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:44 AM
To: Gobeille, Robert; spdx@...
Subject: Re: license name question

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or later.
THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!)

As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is reserving
the
right to approve future versions of the GPL for use as the license for
this
code, which seems different to me than an exception. I understand it
to be
saying - 'if there's a GPL v4, we want the chance to check that out and
accept or not accecpt it instead of preemptively saying we'll accept a
license before it has even been written.' Makes sense and seems
reasonable,
actually.

I guess I would think of this as different than an exception, since
usually
an exception usually adds or modifies the terms of the original
license,
which I suppose this does in a way, but in a different way than we
usually
think of?

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 9:34 AM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:

I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE
exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the
name would
be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the
protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???

Here is the code license notice:
/**********************************************************************
*******
***********
* Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...>
*
* (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...>
*
*
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it
under *
* the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free
Software *
* Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
version 3
or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its
successor
approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined
in
Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license.
*
*
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT
ANY *
* WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS
FOR A *
* PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more
details.
*
*
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along
with *
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*

***********************************************************************
*******
**********/


Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
(http://fossology.org)
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Philip Odence
 

First, let me be a pain in the neck and suggest we should move this
discussion to the spdx-legal list. We've committed to limiting this
general list to more summary information and less real work.

My opinion on the discussion below is that this is a license that it not
on the list, so needs to be treated as a custom license. It would be a
candidate for the list and could be nominated once the Biz team defines a
mechanism for new license inclusion.

On 5/25/11 2:47 PM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:

I brought this up because it is a new signature in FOSSology and I'd like
the name to be as close to the SPDX guidelines as possible. I really
like Daniel's method of identifying disjunctive licenses, but I don't see
that syntax in the SPDX guideline.

Would "GPL-2+-KDEupgradeClause" convey appropriate meaning? Or maybe I
should use Daniel's name until this is formalized or added to the license
list?

Bob

On May 25, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:

Daniel, et al.

By "KDEupgradeClause" you are referring to the previous posts re: KDE
reserving the right to decide on post-v3 versions of GPL as well, is
that
right?

I suppose from the standpoint of our current SPDX license list short
and the
spec guidelines, Daniel has a good point and my previous suggestion
that it
would be "GPLv2+" (I know, that is not the exact correct short
identifier,
but for expediency purposes...) is not exactly right, but more
accuratly, it
would be: a disjunctive set of GPLv2 or GPLv3

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 10:35 AM, "Daniel M. German" <dmg@...> wrote:

Hi Bob, Scott, Jilayne, Armijn,

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program
Office) <scott.lamons@...> wrote:
This is the way I read it as well. However I don't know why they
wouldn't
just license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 and eliminate the "or (at your
option)
any later version..." which seems completely unnecessary and forces
you into
effectively dealing with a non-standard license in SPDX.
We (as in Ninka) decided to consider this a (GPLv2 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause). It can also be considered: (GPLv2 | GPLv3 |
GPLv3-KDEupgradeClause) from a practical point of view
that would simplify analysis. It is not a GPLv2+ or (GPLv2| GPLv3+)
since the upgrade path is different (in the former one the KDE
foundation decides the upgrade path, in the latter the FSF).

--dmg


My 2 cents.

-Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@...
[mailto:spdx-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:44 AM
To: Gobeille, Robert; spdx@...
Subject: Re: license name question

This would be GPL-2+ - as it's really just describing GPL v2 or
later.
THere is no GPL v2.1 (that would be LGPL v2.1, I know, confusing!)

As for the KDE exception - the notice reads to me that KDE is
reserving
the
right to approve future versions of the GPL for use as the license
for
this
code, which seems different to me than an exception. I understand it
to be
saying - 'if there's a GPL v4, we want the chance to check that out
and
accept or not accecpt it instead of preemptively saying we'll accept
a
license before it has even been written.' Makes sense and seems
reasonable,
actually.

I guess I would think of this as different than an exception, since
usually
an exception usually adds or modifies the terms of the original
license,
which I suppose this does in a way, but in a different way than we
usually
think of?

Jilayne


On 5/25/11 9:34 AM, "Bob Gobeille" <bob.gobeille@...> wrote:

I just ran into the following license. It is GPL v2 or GPL v3+ KDE
exception. Note the absence of GPLv2.1. If 2.1 was included, the
name would
be GPL-2+-with-KDE-exception, but since it isn't, what is the
protocol?

GPL-2or3-with-KDE-exception
???

Here is the code license notice:
/*********************************************************************
*
*******
***********
* Copyright (c) 2007 Ian Monroe <ian@...>
*
* (c) 2010 Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@...>
*
*
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it
under *
* the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free
Software *
* Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
version 3
or *
* any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its
successor
approved *
* by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy
defined
in
Section 14 of *
* version 3 of the license.
*
*
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT
ANY *
* WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS
FOR A *
* PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more
details.
*
*
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along
with *
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*

**********************************************************************
*
*******
**********/


Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
Hewlett Packard
Open Source Program Office
(http://fossology.org)
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021


_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
jlovejoy@...

720 240 4545 | phone
720 240 4556 | fax
1 888 OpenLogic | toll free
www.openlogic.com

OpenLogic, Inc.
10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
Broomfield, Colorado 80021

_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx

1 - 10 of 10