On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:54 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU > > ** General Public License version 2.0 or (at your option) the GNU General > > ** Public license version 3 or any later version approved by the KDE Free > > ** Qt Foundation. > > > > That is not equivalent to GPL-2.0-or-later, if you assume it is > > possible the KDE Free Qt Foundation might not approve the FSF's GPLv4, > > say; how should this be represented as an SPDX expression? Should a > > new GPL exception be submitted to SPDX? Is it even what SPDX would > > classify as an "exception"? Does there need to be a 'Qt GPL' SPDX > > identifier to cover this case, which I think is unique to Qt? Should > > we just represent it as 'GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only'? (Surprised if > > this hasn't come up before in an SPDX context.) > Are we talking about the proxy issue with KDE as discussed here: > https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/928 ? Related but different. This is a different proxy, controlled by the KDE Free Qt Foundation, not KDE e.V. That issue would seem to suggest that if we want to represent this at all (and if we want to do this for the various KDE packages in Fedora) it should be through a LicenseRef-. The question is, should we? Outside of KDE, Qt and (IIRC) git, I am not sure I've ever seen a use of such a 'proxy' mechanism, so if it's that uncommon maybe it's not worth bothering to represent. Then again, there are a lot of KDE-related packages in Fedora. Maybe if Arthur needs a relatively quick answer it should be to just use 'GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only'? (I think there's a deeper question here, which is why we should care so much about representing 'or-later' at this stage of FOSS legal history... To me, the justification for doing it in Fedora license metadata is primarily tradition.) > >> # src/utils/qurltlds_p.h which is MPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later OR > >> LGPL-2.1-or-later, > > Given the nature of this file, I'd just omit this. > why do you say this? This header file basically just contains a list of domain name suffixes. In a number of cases I can remember over the years Fedora has treated nominal nonfree licenses on analogous kinds of data as not being an obstacle to Fedora packaging. Unlike those other cases, here we don't have to address the issue of whether there is anything actually licensable in this file; the file appears to be self-compliant at least with MPL 2.0 and the licenses indicated here are all Fedora-allowed. But it seems like an appropriate opportunity to slightly simplify the License: field which I'm mindful that Arthur is probably already finding very complex (given that it was previously just "GPLv3"). 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
