On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:21 AM Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
thank you for all the answers!
There was long-term issue (due Apple legal department) about the
mentioned license change in CUPS and llvm license was an example how the
acceptable license should look like.
After two years NOTICE file was accepted by Apple legal and put in CUPS
project as an exception for ASL 2.0 to prevent future licensing problems.
CUPS project lead at that time and the person who did license change,
Mike Sweet, left Apple in the meantime and now he is an author of
LPrint, which I try to package and he chose the license which CUPS has
to prevent any license issues, because LPrint is based on parts of
previous CUPS code.
CUPS project in Apple now has a new lead, who is unfortunately
unresponsive at the present, so in my opinion changing/updating license
within CUPS is not possible, meaning updating lprint license will not
happen unless CUPS exception changes.
Then, would it be possible to have:
'Apache-2.0 WITH CUPS-exception'
'ASL 2.0 with exceptions'
as a license? If it woulf be, what can I do to have an option to use them?
If I understand correctly, there is no current official SPDX exception
for the CUPS exception. There might be some value in getting it added,
but I doubt I myself would find the time to do so in the shorter term.
Anyway, as for Fedora, I think the easiest thing to do here in the
short term is to just use "ASL 2.0" and ignore the exception. I'm not
sure I see any major value in having the license tag signal the
presence of a license exception, in contrast to cases involving
licenses in the GPL family.
Thank you in advance,
On 8/5/20 7:23 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bryan Sutula <bsutula(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> (replied earlier but it was moderated...sorry if a duplicate arrives)
>> On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 14:12 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>> I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint
>>> which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and
>>> Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with
>>> exceptions' at  - would it be possible to add the short name into
>>> the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
>> The question of what to name this exception aside, the lprint NOTICE
>> text is only a portion of the LLVM-exception text. The lprint text
>> is awkward in that the first word of the exception is "Additionally"
>> but there's no prior exception text in the lprint NOTICE file for the
>> "Additionally" to refer to. I wonder whether the author might be
>> willing to avoid creating yet another custom exception type, by
>> including the entire LLVM-exception text in the lprint NOTICE file.
> Ah, I completely missed that. I suppose it shows that the LLVM
> exception is not really suitable as a general-purpose (not
> compiler-specific) exception.
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
Senior Commercial Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
+1 212 689-4350