I have already responded to the GPL v.X only topic in a previous email, so only responding to additional items here:
On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> wrote: > > But there remains the issues that I wrote about more than a year ago, > back in June/July 2012: >> I don't even *know* of any package in the world that's licensed under >> "GPLv2-only along with any given 'GCC exception'". There is actually >> *no such thing* as a single "GPL-2.0-with-GCC-exception". The GPLv2'd >> versions of GCC actually have a patchwork of *different* exceptions >> that are all worded slightly differently and appear throughout various >> directories in the sources. When I helped lead the process of >> drafting the GPLv3 RTL exception, one of our primary goals was to >> encompass and rectify the differences in the various GPLv2 exceptions >> for GCC. > > I just took a peak at https://spdx.org/licenses/ and see that after a > year, this problem still hasn't been corrected. I ask again, how > exactly does one write an SPDX file for GCC? :) > Tom Vidal on the legal team has taken a first stab of recording as many of the GPL exceptions as possible. He had sent me a first pass of his research a bit more than a month ago and, admittedly, it got lost in my inbox due to various, um, events in my life, so I can take the wrath for not moving that ball forward faster. That being said, I'm not going to promise we'll get through Tom's list in the next month, as I'm hell bent on completing the matching guidelines, and getting through at least a good portion of the Fedora license list, both of which involve a large amount of work. BUT, we can certainly make sure we have the correct exception for GCC in particular. I'm still not clear on what you want added? Can you be specific in terms of a suggested license short identifier, full license name, and the license exception text? (basically, follow the format here: http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license Did you happen to have a list of some kind capturing the different wording variations that appear with GPLv2? That is exactly the kind of thing that would be extremely helpful.. if the wording is different enough, then it may need to be considered a different exception (and therefore a different name and short identifier…) > Finally, I must note again, upon taking a peak at SPDX for the first > time in a year, that it's frustrating for a technical person to get > involved. While I appreciate that you took my advice from a year ago > and recently created a Git repository for the license list, I find that > it appears the key document in that repository is a spreadsheet (!), > which isn't ASCII diffable nor usable with any Git tools. (See: > http://git.spdx.org/?p=license-list.git;a=commit;h=762d769105765c28308569ad48080deca65db98e > ) > I'll have to defer to the ASCII diffable or Git tools usability question to the tech folks. In any case, given the available labor versus needed task, we *have* made significant progress. It just may not have been in the ways you specifically wanted. Cheers, Jilayne Lovejoy SPDX Legal Team lead lovejoyl...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
