Approval of license exception for new Fedora packages: raft/dqlite

[Reto Gantenbein]

Hi everyone

I'm in the course of adding two new packages raft [1] (sources: [2])
and dqlite [3] (sources: [4]) to Fedora.

According to the LICENSE files [5][6] I would choose the Fedora license
short name "LGPLv3 with exception" for these packages. The exception
goes as following:

"As a special exception to the GNU Lesser General Public License
version 3 ("LGPL3"), the copyright holders of this Library give you
permission to convey to a third party a Combined Work that links
statically or dynamically to this Library without providing any Minimal
Corresponding Source or Minimal Application Code as set out in 4d or
providing the installation information set out in section 4e, provided
that you comply with the other provisions of LGPL3 and provided that
you meet, for the Application the terms and conditions of the
license(s) which apply to the Application.

Except as stated in this special exception, the provisions of LGPL3
will continue to comply in full to this Library. If you modify this
Library, you may apply this exception to your version of this Library,
but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete
this exception statement from your version. This exception does not
(and cannot) modify any license terms which apply to the Application,
with which you must still comply."

According to the rules that I found in the documentation [7] I'm asking
you for approval of this exception.

Kind regards and cheers,
Reto 

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017459
[2]: https://github.com/canonical/raft
[3]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2017476
[4]: https://github.com/canonical/dqlite
[5]: https://github.com/canonical/raft/blob/v0.11.2/LICENSE
[6]: https://github.com/canonical/dqlite/blob/v1.9.0/LICENSE
[7]:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_Licen...

[Reto Gantenbein]

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.

Cheers, Reto

[Richard Fontana]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:29 PM Reto Gantenbein
<reto.gantenbein(a)linuxmonk.ch&gt; 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).

Richard

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 11/22/21 5:13 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>  On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:29 PM Reto Gantenbein
>  <reto.gantenbein(a)linuxmonk.ch&gt; 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

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 11/24/21 12:09 PM, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  On 11/22/21 5:13 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:29 PM Reto Gantenbein
> > <reto.gantenbein(a)linuxmonk.ch&gt; 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
>  
Fixed! it's LGPL-3.0-only WITH LGPL-3.0-linking-exception
see LGPL-3.0-only WITH LGPL-3.0-linking-exception

:)
Jilayne

[Reto Gantenbein]

Hi Jilayne

On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 17:35 -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>  Fixed! it's LGPL-3.0-only WITH LGPL-3.0-linking-exception
>  see LGPL-3.0-only WITH LGPL-3.0-linking-exception
>   
That's great. Thanks a lot for your effort.

Cheers, Reto