From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8696FC04AAF for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 18:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9E321019 for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 18:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=jilayne.com header.i=@jilayne.com header.b="BsCmd91E" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728318AbfEUS7Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 14:59:24 -0400 Received: from mx2-c1.supremebox.com ([198.23.53.234]:47111 "EHLO mx1.supremebox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728283AbfEUS7Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 14:59:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jilayne.com ; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=tHXZn16UjotwHgxkAPiWK3HoCUpZeU4BeQ215diRdAE=; b=BsCmd91E54s37DMsNngIB6Xj+O AHN3C//0CVfNziGapOMuZLC9dvR8VWF8eIJcHiuJ/D+Dlz9v1CYdT6lkAS1qQK8n63gvD7GwZRo9W Sst2Sv4wRJ7p9OvD4mgKQ5k0RrxanMpY5ugyErXpyl9XZUnlSQI/gK/wGAcpBZjEEWpc=; Received: from [67.164.173.226] (helo=[10.0.0.21]) by mx1.supremebox.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hT9ys-0003Uw-1j; Tue, 21 May 2019 18:59:22 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: Meta-question on GPL compliance of this activity From: J Lovejoy In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:59:21 -0600 Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Richard Fontana X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Sender-Ident-agJab5osgicCis: opensource@jilayne.com Sender: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Hi Richard, Thanks for this comment. Yes, this is something that has been considered = and is being considered. Some statement of the general guidelines we are = applying for this work would be helpful for all involved and beyond. We = are working on that, please hold in the meantime. Thanks, Jilayne > On May 21, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Richard Fontana = wrote: >=20 > I was at the LLW event in Barcelona last month but unfortunately did > not attend the workshop relating to this activity, so I apologize if > this is something that has already been considered. >=20 > GPLv2 section 1 says: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of > the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided > that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an > appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact > all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any > warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this > License along with the Program." >=20 > I have recently heard the argument that replacing a more or less > standard old-school GNU license notice, or any sort of nonstandard > pre-SPDX alternative human-oriented notice, with an SPDX license > identifier string, without explicit permission from the copyright > holder, complies with this condition, because in substance the SPDX > string embodies equivalent licensing information (and has benefits of > its own over the old-school notice). However, more conservative > interpreters of GPLv2, including some copyright holders, might argue > otherwise. >=20 > The discovery of GPL notices juxtaposed with warranty disclaimers > imported from non-GPL licenses, or warranty disclaimers that otherwise > go beyond what is called out in GPLv2 and the traditional GNU license > notice, also raises the question of whether this list's work is > strictly compliant with the quoted language from GPLv2 section 1. >=20 > Have other participants already thought about and addressed these > sorts of compliance issues? >=20 > Richard