[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Moolticute SPDX update
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:45 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/9/22 11:00 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 10:29 AM Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm in the progress of migrating the Mooltice [0] package to SPDX, but
>> it proved to be more difficult than anticipated. I would be grateful if
>> someone could review my current analysis.
>> The license tag and accompanying comment I have at the moment is the
>> following:
>>
>> # The entire source code is GPL-3.0-or-later except:
>> # src/qwinoverlappedionotifier.[cpp|h] which is LGPL-3.0 OR
>> GPL-2.0-or-later,
> <projects mountain bike signal onto clouds>
oh my, is this a thing now?
>
> Jilayne, these files actually say LGPLv3 (ambiguous as to later
> versions but let's assume as a matter of common sense the Qt licensors
> intended LGPLv3 only), or:
>
> ** 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 ?
Yes. Oh lord, does this mean we need a
LicenseRef-(RedHat|Fedora)-KDE-Accepted-(GPL|LGPL) local exception
set?
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!