On 11/22/21 5:13 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:29 PM Reto Gantenbein
<reto.gantenbein@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi everybody
On Sun, 2021-11-14 at 13:08 +0100, Reto Gantenbein wrote:
According to the rules that I found in the documentation [7] I'm
asking
you for approval of this exception.
Could anyone have a look at it please? I'm kind of blocked with
uploading the software to the Fedora servers if I don't get any
feedback.
Any response is appreciated.
IMO this exception is okay for Fedora.
Incidentally this exception seems to be identical to what SPDX calls
LGPL-3.0-linking-exception
(https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0-linking-exception.html).
That is correct. The SPDX license expression would be either:
LGPL-3.0-or-later WITH LGPL-3.0-linking-exception
or
LGPL-3.0-only WITH LGPL-3.0-linking-exception
Unfortunately, the project doesn't seem to specify if it's LGPL-3.0
"only" or "or later" (a difference that is not distinct at this point in
time, but bad practice to not specify in any case). I have filed an
issue in hopes they can fix that:
https://github.com/canonical/raft/issues/252
Jilayne
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
