HaXml LGPLv2 exceptions

[Jens-Ulrik Petersen]

Hi Fedora Legal list,

I am trying to package HaXml <https://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaXml>
for Fedora.
Its library is distributed with the LGPL 2.1 license, with an exception
in a COPYRIGHT file:

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaXml-1.25.5/src/COPYRIGHT

"""
As a relaxation of clause 6 of the LGPL, the copyright holders of this
library give permission to use, copy, link, modify, and distribute,
binary-only object-code versions of an executable linked with the
original unmodified Library, without requiring the supply of any
mechanism to modify or replace the Library and relink (clauses 6a,
6b, 6c, 6d, 6e), provided that all the other terms of clause 6 are
complied with.
"""

It also includes some tools which are distributed with the GPL 2 license.

So I'd like to ask for approval for the above exception to make it "LGPLv2
with exceptions".
Not sure if that prevents "LGPLv2+ with exceptions"?

Thank you,
Jens

[Richard Fontana]

 On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:46 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi Fedora Legal list,
>
>  I am trying to package HaXml for Fedora.
>  Its library is distributed with the LGPL 2.1 license, with an exception
>  in a COPYRIGHT file:
>
>  https://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaXml-1.25.5/src/COPYRIGHT
>
>  """
>  As a relaxation of clause 6 of the LGPL, the copyright holders of this
>  library give permission to use, copy, link, modify, and distribute,
>  binary-only object-code versions of an executable linked with the
>  original unmodified Library, without requiring the supply of any
>  mechanism to modify or replace the Library and relink (clauses 6a,
>  6b, 6c, 6d, 6e), provided that all the other terms of clause 6 are
>  complied with.
>  """
>
>  It also includes some tools which are distributed with the GPL 2 license.
>
>  So I'd like to ask for approval for the above exception to make it "LGPLv2 with
> exceptions".
>  Not sure if that prevents "LGPLv2+ with exceptions"? 
There's nothing particularly problematic about the exception itself. I
would suggest it is not worthwhile to add the "with exceptions" to the
License: tag. Anyone who would care about this exception is probably
not going to rely on what the License: tag is (nor should anyone). In
all likelihood no one is going to care about the exception anyway. And
for anyone who did care about the exception, the "with exceptions"
phrase isn't going to be too helpful.

This view probably implies that the general practice of using "with
exceptions", typically in a GPL scenario, should also be abandoned as
not being worthwhile. On the other hand, I can see the value of
switching to a nomenclature system based on SDPX short identifiers, in
which it could be useful in at least some cases to have a seemingly
SPDX-conformant expression used in the License: tag including a
standardized SPDX exception sub-expression (e.g. where a GPL exception
is relatively well known or the association of a package with a GPL
exception is particularly strong).

Richard

[Jens-Ulrik Petersen]

Thank you very much, Richard!