New license request: libzmq-exception [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[richardfontana]

1. License Name: libzmq exception
2. Short identifier: libzmq-exception
3. License Author or steward: Unknown
4. Comments: This is nominally an exception used with LGPL-3.0-or-later in ZeroMQ, a widely-used FOSS project. It resembles Classpath-exception-2.0 but is notable in deviating from standard GPL/LGPL exceptions in mandating inclusion of the exception in modified versions, possibly the result of a drafting oversight. (As such it is not clear it is an 'exception' as SPDX understands the term.)
5. Standard License Header:
6. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/180
7. URL(s): https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq#license
8. OSI Status: Not Submitted
9. Example Projects: https://www.zeromq.org

[richardfontana]

Fedora priority: low

[swinslow]

@richardfontana Good point on the "you must extend this exception" language being different from the more permissive "you may" language of the way we've traditionally thought about exceptions. I think this one warrants being part of the broader conversation about whether to change the way we think about exceptions.

I'm marking this one as pending discussion on an upcoming legal team call.

[richardfontana]

I'm not sure whether SPDX-legal reached a decision on whether the libzmq exception should be treated as an "exception" in the SPDX exception list sense.

While I consider this license FOSS, I am not sure I would want to see Fedora use "LGPL-3.0-or-later WITH libzmq-exception", because that would be inconsistent with other cases (predating Fedora's migration to SPDX expressions) where Fedora has created unique names for the use of nominal GPL-family licenses with non-normative (though FOSS) additional restrictions or cases where the GPL-family license is accompanied by an official restrictive, unconventional (though FOSS) gloss or interpretation.

@jlovejoy since you are involved both in Fedora and SPDX-Legal, I thought I should call this opinion to your attention. The issue is, if SPDX adds libzmq-exception to the exception list, I think Fedora should possibly use a LicenseRef instead of the seemingly obvious SPDX license list expression.

BTW, libzmq has been undertaking a relicensing effort to move to MPL-2.0.

I would imagine it is unlikely SPDX would add a nonstandard form of *GPL license to the list, including something like LGPL-3.0-or-later coupled with an "exception" like this one that embodies an additional restriction. Therefore, I'm guessing that I should close this issue. I am also somewhat concerned that keeping the issue open will cause SPDX to clarify its policy on exceptions in such a way that it will treat things like the libzmq exception (FOSS but not-entirely-additional-permission constructs) as includable in the SPDX exceptions list. Therefore, I am closing this issue though perhaps it should or will be reopened or re-introduced in the future.