On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:53:47AM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: > Based on feedback from W. Trevor King (thank you!!), here is round 2.
Cross-linking round 1 [1]. > Here I propose this Facebook rider as a new *license* instead of > separate license *exception*… I had proposed the name > “ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES” as a license exception. However, > it has been previously agreed that this situation should be handled > as a stand-alone license, and then used this way: "(BSD-3-Clause AND > FB-Patents-2.0)". This proposal is for a license ID for the patent grant (not including the BSD-3-Clause). In previous discussion, a license that included *both* the BSD-3-Clause and the patent rider was also floated (maybe Facebook-BSD-Patent-2.0) [2,3], I think mostly due to concerns about whether the explicit patent rider impacts the BSD's implicit patent grant (if the “implicit patent grant” has legs at all) [2,4]. If the legal team is not concerned about interactions like that, then minting a new license/exception ID for just the patent grant is fine. If the legal team is concerned about the BSD-3-Clause / Facebook-Patent-2.0 interaction, then that single Facebook-BSD-Patent-2.0 license is one viable approach. Alternatively, the previous discussion of this issue turned up some systemic adjustments to represent these potential “read together” issues more generally: * Splitting the current AND operator into AND and PLUS, where [5]: * x AND y := contains code licensed per and code licensed per y * x PLUS y := contains code licensed per combination of x and y The advantage of this would be that PLUS may be impacted by these “read together” issues while AND would not. Folks who are not worried about those sort of impacts can ignore the distinction. * Generalizing WITH to mean “append this text” [6] without implying something about what an “exception” means [7,8]. This is similar to the AND/PLUS split, but the PLUS case is squashed into WITH. The advantage of this would be that WITH becomes much more powerful and the legal team can become much less opinionated once it doesn't need to distinguish “stand-alone licenses” from “riders granting execptions” from “other types of riders”. The drawback is that users who trusted the legal-team's calls on that would no longer have programmatic access to the legal team's positions. Other benefits to all the composite approaches are that React's license expression will include ‘BSD-3-Clause’ and you can have a one-to-one mapping between files and entries in the PackageLicenseInfoFromFiles field [9]. I don't have a personal opinion on all of this other than a vague concern that the patent grant may be too broad to qualify for the 2.1 spec's WITH scope [10], and the license ID for the Facebook patent grant (as proposed in this thread) avoids that concern. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002119.html Subject: New License/Exception Request: ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:22:37 -0400 Message-ID: <9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1b75b6f3...@exch07-4850.ida.org> [2]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-June/002720.html Subject: [Bug 1292] New: What is the correct license expression for a project with an additional patent license? Date: Mon Jun 15 19:00:37 UTC 2015 [3]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-June/002722.html Subject: [Bug 1292] New: What is the correct license expression for a project with an additional patent license? Date: Tue Jun 16 07:46:13 UTC 2015 [4]: https://lwn.net/Articles/728178/ Subject: Apache disallows the Facebook BSD+patent license Date: 2017-07-18 [5]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-June/002723.html Subject: [Bug 1292] New: What is the correct license expression for a project with an additional patent license? Date: Tue Jun 16 17:22:46 UTC 2015 [6]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-June/002727.html Subject: [Bug 1292] New: What is the correct license expression for a project with an additional patent license? Date: Wed Jun 17 12:37:48 UTC 2015 [7]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-July/002036.html Subject: revised wording for top of exceptions page Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 23:35:40 +0100 Message-Id: <5F1D2C18-6D14-4CCD-80D3-6008588BB893 at jilayne.com> [8]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-July/002078.html Subject: revised text for top of exceptions page Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:34:12 -0600 Message-Id: <CFC5FB98-BDEC-47BC-B64C-47B1473E7176 at jilayne.com> [9]: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.32hioqz [10]: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60 -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
