ASL 2.0 with 'CUPS' exception when packaging libcupsfilters (reviving old 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' thread)

[Zdenek Dohnal]

Hi all,

I'm about to put a new package - libcupsfilters - under review to get it 
into Fedora. It has the same license as CUPS - ASL 2.0 with exception, 
which was taken from LLVM and we talked about it in thread mentioned in 
subject.

Now I checked 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ and I see 
there Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception, which matches the contents of the 
license and exception, but the name of the exception in the NOTICE file 
is 'CUPS exception'.

Is it okay from legal part to use SPDX name ' Apache-2.0 WITH 
LLVM-exception' or do we need a special name?

Thank you in advance!


Zdenek

-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat, BRQ-TPBC

[Richard Fontana]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:14 AM Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi all,
>
>  I'm about to put a new package - libcupsfilters - under review to get it
>  into Fedora. It has the same license as CUPS - ASL 2.0 with exception,
>  which was taken from LLVM and we talked about it in thread mentioned in
>  subject.
>
>  Now I checked
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ and I see
>  there Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception, which matches the contents of the
>  license and exception, but the name of the exception in the NOTICE file
>  is 'CUPS exception'.
>
>  Is it okay from legal part to use SPDX name ' Apache-2.0 WITH
>  LLVM-exception' 
Yes, because, as you point out, the CUPS exception is identical to
what SPDX calls "LLVM-exception".

Richard

[Zdenek Dohnal]

Thank you, Richard!

On 2/10/23 14:46, Richard Fontana wrote:
>  On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:14 AM Zdenek Dohnal
> <zdohnal(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm about to put a new package - libcupsfilters - under review to get it
> > into Fedora. It has the same license as CUPS - ASL 2.0 with exception,
> > which was taken from LLVM and we talked about it in thread mentioned in
> > subject.
> >
> > Now I checked
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ and I see
> > there Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception, which matches the contents of the
> > license and exception, but the name of the exception in the NOTICE file
> > is 'CUPS exception'.
> >
> > Is it okay from legal part to use SPDX name ' Apache-2.0 WITH
> > LLVM-exception'
>  Yes, because, as you point out, the CUPS exception is identical to
>  what SPDX calls "LLVM-exception".
>
>  Richard
>  
-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat, BRQ-TPBC