New license request: mxml-exception

[nirik]

1. License Name: ASL-2.0 + linking exception
2. Short identifier: GPL-2.0-Linking-Exception
3. License Author or steward: michaelrsweet
4. Comments: mxml is a package in Fedora and the exception is has doesn't seem to match any existing exceptions.

See https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/549#note_2027321979
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/383
6. URL(s): https://github.com/michaelrsweet/mxml/blob/master/NOTICE, https://github.com/michaelrsweet/mxml/blob/master/LICENSE
7. OSI Status: Unknown
8. Example Projects: https://github.com/michaelrsweet/mxml/

[karsten-klein]

Quite confusing naming proposal (title, name, short name). I assume the following exception is the subject here:

In addition, if you combine or link compiled forms of this Software with
software that is licensed under the GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (“Combined Software”) and if
a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the patent provision (Section
3), the indemnity provision (Section 9) or other Section of the License
conflicts with the conditions of the GPLv2 or LGPLv2, you may retroactively and
prospectively choose to deem waived or otherwise exclude such Section(s) of the
License, but only in their entirety and only with respect to the Combined
Software.

[karsten-klein]

{metæffekt} Universe
canonical name: Apache Patent Provision Exception
short name: Apache-Patent-Exception
category: Apache Patent Provision Exception
ScanCode reference id: apache-patent-exception
OSI status: none

ScanCode
matched id: apache-2.0 WITH generic-exception

Comment
Please note that exception is explicitly dealing with patents. Simply naming it a "linking exception" I do not regard a valid approach. So I'm proposing to use the (canonical) name and short name as we have derived. +1 to add.

[richardfontana]

Note also the complication that there is a separate text in the README.md file of the same project that basically says the exception is removable (in the manner of typical GPL exceptions, I guess). See https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/549#note_2116790301

[jlovejoy]

@richardfontana - does that impact your thoughts on inclusion to SPDX or not?

[swinslow]

Discussed on 2024-10-24 legal team call -- +1 to add this, given its inclusion in Fedora together with it being in the same vein as other "enable linking between incompatible licenses" exceptions such as LLVM-exception.

For the name, wouldn't use "Apache" or "ASF" in the name or ID since it isn't an ASF-issued exception. Also wouldn't use "GPL-2.0" since it applies to LGPL-2.0 also; and wouldn't include "patent" since it's broader that just the patent indemnity provision.

Discussed on legal team call and agreed to use "mxml Exception" as name and mxml-exception as identifier to use for this one, based on it appearing that this project (and possibly others from the same author) are where this originates.

[jlovejoy]

License Inclusion Decision

Decision:

• approved
• not approved

Name

mxml Exception

License ID

mxml-exception

XML markup

none

Notes:

This is similar to the LLVM-exception, but omits the first paragraph.

Next steps

If the license has been accepted, please follow the accepted-license process to create the PR.