James Bottomley wrote: > Finally, there's the question of what value does a file containing WITH > KernelEnforcementStatement-1.0 provide to downstream? > > I think the answer here is pretty much none in legal terms.
At the beginning here, it seems like you are saying the LinuxEnforcementStatement-1.0 has no legal significance and is not legally binding as an additional permissions. I suspect you don't really mean to be saying that, as it would also mean that other additional permissions granted for Linux, such as the Linux-Syscall-Note, also have no legal significance. Later, you point out again that it is indeed an additional permission under copyright: > So I think it's a question for the SPDX community to answer whether > codifying this additional permission It sounded on the SPDX Legal conference call, where I've been told by SPDX leadership is the correct place for these decisions to be made -- that we had nearly full consensus. The only objector appears to be the Linux Foundation. Jilayne asked for a coherent legal argument that explained how the LinuxEnforcementStatement-1.0 is *not* an additional permission under copyright within a week. I'd written: >> (b) both are not granted by all copyright holders in Linux. James replied: > Yes: your (b) isn't true for the syscall exception. The syscall > exception has been part of the linux kernel COPYING file since before > revision control history began. Accordingly it applies to every > contribution to the Linux kernel and thus is granted by all copyright > holders and we will continue to maintain this. Has the Linux project gotten the syscall exception for all code that was every borrowed from another project under GPL-2.0-or-later and/or GPL-2.0-only? While that borrowed code is a small minority, it is copyright-wise signifigant. * * * As for Conservancy signing onto the enforcement statement, thanks for your links, James. We're aware of how to do the process -- it sounded to me like Mike was unsure that more copyright holders would ever sign on, so I was offering joint press with the LF as a way to help you all with that. If you don't feel you need -- if you feel developers are likely to be inspired to sign on without more publicity -- then it hopefully quells Mike's concerns that there won't be more copyright holders to sign on, and Conservancy can just take care of it in due course. In any event, more discussion about that part of it on spdx-legal is probably drifting to off-topic for the list, but I'd be glad to pick up a side thread with James and Mike about doing more publicity about the Linux Enforcement Statement jointly between LF and Conservancy. -- Bradley M. Kuhn Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2457): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2457 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/28567956/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
