On Montag, 6. Januar 2020 23:43:29 CET Cornelius Schumacher wrote: [...] > In general I think the proposal makes a lot of sense. It definitely is going > into the right direction. > > Regarding the LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-(L)GPL texts: > > * What's the exact reasons for changing them compared to our current license > statements? I tend to think it's better to keep them as they are and leave > the versions in. Otherwise they are missing the reference to what "later" > is relative to. > * The texts are not meant to be used as license headers in source files but > as stand-alone files, so the refeence in a SPDX identifier such as > "LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL" can be > resolved. Maybe that could be made more explicit in the policy. Maybe by > moving them to the end as an appendix with an explanation how these are to > be stored as files according to SPDX and REUSE conventions. Then the > LicenseRef* identifiers in the bullet points in the policy could maybe also > turned into hyperlinks pointing to these sections in the appendix. > > It would also be nice to have examples for license headers which don't use > the full text of the headers but only the SPDX identifiers as specified by > REUSE. This is the more concise version and I think the one we would like > to settle on longer term. So it would be good to have explicit examples > which show how this will look like. That could be a later step, though.
Hi Cornelius, thanks for your comments! Regarding the license statements for the "accecpted by KDE" clause: My main motivation was to introduce a workaround with some licensing mixups we have in our repositories. For example (there are many more, these are only the first in my list): - LGPL-2.0-only OR LGPL 3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL: https://github.com/KDE/kio/blob/master/autotests/kfilecopytomenutest.cpp - LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL 3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL: https://github.com/KDE/attica/blob/master/src/projectparser.cpp So, there are two LGPL based licenses with the same accepted-by-KDE clause, which relies on the LGPL-3 clause for defining a proxy. Yet, they state different LGPL-2.* versions, once LGPL-2.0-only and once LGPL-2.1-only. The KDE clause -- in my opinion -- does not need this distinction, as it only relates to the LGPL-3 version for defining is meaning. So another option would be to define that later versions of the LGPL-3.0 are meant. This should not change any meaning of the current license statements. What do you think? Regarding the second point: I fully agree and will do this. And I want to do this together with examples how to state the licenses correctly. However, I think, stating the examples for REUSE compatible license usage should best be put on a separate wiki page for better readability. Cheers, Andreas
