On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 10:29 AM Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm in the progress of migrating the Mooltice [0] package to SPDX, but
it proved to be more difficult than anticipated. I would be grateful if
someone could review my current analysis.
The license tag and accompanying comment I have at the moment is the
following:
# The entire source code is GPL-3.0-or-later except:
# src/qwinoverlappedionotifier.[cpp|h] which is LGPL-3.0 OR
GPL-2.0-or-later,
<projects mountain bike signal onto clouds>
Jilayne, these files actually say LGPLv3 (ambiguous as to later
versions but let's assume as a matter of common sense the Qt licensors
intended LGPLv3 only), or:
** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU
** General Public License version 2.0 or (at your option) the GNU General
** Public license version 3 or any later version approved by the KDE Free
** Qt Foundation.
That is not equivalent to GPL-2.0-or-later, if you assume it is
possible the KDE Free Qt Foundation might not approve the FSF's GPLv4,
say; how should this be represented as an SPDX expression? Should a
new GPL exception be submitted to SPDX? Is it even what SPDX would
classify as an "exception"? Does there need to be a 'Qt GPL' SPDX
identifier to cover this case, which I think is unique to Qt? Should
we just represent it as 'GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only'? (Surprised if
this hasn't come up before in an SPDX context.)
# src/AnsiEscapeCodeHandler.[cpp|h] which is
Qt-GPL-exception-1.0,
More precisely, GPL-3.0-only WITH Qt-GPL-exception-1.0, I think.
# src/utils/qurltlds_p.h which is MPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0-or-later
OR
LGPL-2.1-or-later,
Given the nature of this file, I'd just omit this.
Richard