On Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 06:33:11 CET Andreas Cord-Landwehr wrote: > > Regarding the license statements for the "accecpted by KDE" clause: My main > motivation was to introduce a workaround with some licensing mixups we have > in our repositories. For example (there are many more, these are only the > first in my list): > - LGPL-2.0-only OR LGPL 3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL: > https://github.com/KDE/kio/blob/master/autotests/kfilecopytomenutest.cpp > - LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL 3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL: > https://github.com/KDE/attica/blob/master/src/projectparser.cpp > So, there are two LGPL based licenses with the same accepted-by-KDE clause, > which relies on the LGPL-3 clause for defining a proxy. Yet, they state > different LGPL-2.* versions, once LGPL-2.0-only and once LGPL-2.1-only. The > KDE clause -- in my opinion -- does not need this distinction, as it only > relates to the LGPL-3 version for defining is meaning. > So another option would be to define that later versions of the LGPL-3.0 are > meant. This should not change any meaning of the current license > statements. What do you think? Are there really that many different combinations with the KDE exception? Is there more than * LGPL-2.0-only OR LGPL 3.0-only OR LicenseRef * LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL 3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL * LGPL 3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL for LGPL and * GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-GPL * GPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-GPL for GPL? Your suggestion to specify the LicenseRef with the 3.0 versions as reference makes sense in any case, I think, assuming that this is in all combinations and it gives a clear and well-defined meaning for the versions, which matches the current license headers when combined with the ORed other versions. > Regarding the second point: I fully agree and will do this. And I want to do > this together with examples how to state the licenses correctly. However, I > think, stating the examples for REUSE compatible license usage should best > be put on a separate wiki page for better readability. Great, makes sense to me. -- Cornelius Schumacher