Re: [Batch 1 - patch 12/25] treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - gpl-2.0_208.RULE

"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-spdx
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:24 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Without this external file, how is anyone to know without digging through
> > Git logs *whether* a warranty disclaimer used to be there or not?  …
> > Part of the reason we're struggling with this is that SPDX *should have*
> > provided identifiers for the items that GPLv2 allows to vary in
> > presentation and terms of the licenses!
>
Richard Fontana replied later that day:
> This is an interesting point. SPDX identifiers were I think originally
> meant to refer to license texts, not license notices, except for the
> "or-later" vs. "only" issue found in the GPL family.

Thanks, Fontana, you've stated the problem clearly and succinctly.  IOW (if
I'm following you correctly), the fundamental issue here is that linux-spdx
project is using license *text* monikers to replace license *notices*, but
GPLv2 permits variance in license *notices* that *are* legally significant.
(And, GPLv2 compliance requires keeping such notices in tact.)

 * * *

Meanwhile, if you at Red Hat were (at least at one time) encouraging a
legally different warranty disclaimer notice for employees to use upstream …

> To be a little clearer about why this bothers me a little bit. I know that
> in the past the FSF gave public guidance to companies that it was okay to
> tack on materially different warranty and liability disclaimer language to
> GPL notices (or, say, in global product license agreements). (GPLv3
> codifies this in its section 7.) Also, earlier in my time at Red Hat I went
> through a period where I was recommending to developers to include some
> disclaimer language that differed from what you have in the traditional GPL
> boilerplate. The point is that there are cases where the materially
> different language is deliberate and reflected the legal preferences of the
> contributor (or contributor's employer) in question

… then, odds are, other companies did (or even still do) as well.

   -- bkuhn
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.