I agree that the LGPL 3.0 absolutely *should* be on the license list. --- David A. Wheeler
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] 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-boun...@lists.spdx.org<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 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 <opensou...@jilayne.com<mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com>> 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 opensou...@jilayne.com<mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com> On Mar 23, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Sam Ellis <sam.el...@arm.com<mailto:sam.el...@arm.com>> 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@lists.spdx.org<mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
