Hi Jilayne,
Re: 2.0 will be LIVE tomorrow!! yippee!!! Thanks for all of your hard
work finishing up the Legal tasks. I'll say yippee as well !!!
Regards,
Dennis
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:47 PM, J Lovejoy opensou...@jilayne.com wrote:
HI all,
Thanks for the thoughts and weighing in. We
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:10 PM, J Lovejoy opensou...@jilayne.com 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
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] 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
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
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
-boun...@lists.spdx.org] 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
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
Despite my wholehearted agreement with Sam, I must agree with Dennis.
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] 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
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
