On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:14 AM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2/9/22 9:08 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 10:53 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> * Serge Guelton: > >> > >>> the LLVM project has moved to an Apache Software License 2.0 with exception > >>> license, referenced as https://releases.llvm.org/10.0.0/LICENSE.TXT > >>> > >>> Some more details are available here: > >>> > >>> https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#new-llvm-project-license-framework > >>> > >>> Does it make sense to have it listed in > >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses and the > >>> associated short name be compatible with, say, rpmdiff? > >> Isn't our position that the relicensing has not happened yet, that the > >> SPDX identifiers in the sources are incorrect, and that the project > >> still distributes the sources under the old LLVM license (called “NCSA” > >> in the Fedora framework)? > > Separately from that issue, I am aware of one unresolved (for my team > > at Red Hat) longstanding objection to some aspects of the language of > > the LLVM exception (raised by at least one person outside of Red Hat). > > I wouldn't want to classify the exception as "good" without reaching > > some sort of resolution on that issue. > > > > Richard > > just saw this after I wrote my email. That's interesting and a bit > surprising - I'd be curious to hear more about what the objection is > (and especially since I know LLVM got a lot of feedback when they were > drafting it!) I think they got a lot of feedback from a somewhat narrow part of the universe that didn't include historically non-LLVM-oriented community members. To be clear, my position would be that even if the exception embodies some horrible drafting problem it does not mean LLVM, conceptualized as being "Apache-2.0" (-only, as it were) or "Apache-2.0 AND NCSA" or whatever is problematic for Fedora. It sort of goes to the issue of how important it is to make sure the license metadata incorporates the details of all exceptions given that normally exceptions are structured as additional permissions (though sometimes "exceptions" are additional restrictions and historically some of those have been problematic). Not so long ago (before we were engaged in the current iteration of looking into having Fedora migrate from Callaway Notation™ to SPDX identifiers) I suggested that Fedora abandon all efforts to track exceptions as being ultimately a waste of time, but I have a feeling you would disagree with that view. :-) Richard _______________________________________________ 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
