Re: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?

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

RE: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?

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

Re: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?

I’m with my friend David on this…and with my friend Ralph: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak

Re: Spdx-legal Digest, Vol 51, Issue 11

-- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/attachments/20150326/3f34fd7b/attachment.html -- ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org