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_License_...
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
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:29 PM Reto Gantenbein reto.gantenbein@linuxmonk.ch 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
On 11/22/21 5:13 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:29 PM Reto Gantenbein reto.gantenbein@linuxmonk.ch 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
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@linuxmonk.ch 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
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