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

[jamesjer]

1. License Name: SWI-exception 2. Short identifier: SWI-exception 3. License Author or steward: Unknown 4. Comments: This is actually a license exception, not a license. It has been used in conjunction with GPL-2.0-or-later. Various projects under https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/ use this exception. See this Fedora review for background: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/101.

The exception is almost identical to gnu-javamail-exception, except it adds the clause "compiled with a Free Software compiler".

License inclusion principles:

• The exception does not match another exception already on the SPDX License List.
• The exception has identifiable and stable text; it is not in the midst of drafting.
• The exception is structured to be generally usable by anyone. It is not specific to one project, consortium or corporation.
• The exception is used in multiple projects under the SWI-Prolog umbrella. 5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/193 6. URL(s): https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/packages-clpqr/blob/bfa80b9270274f0800120d5b8e6fef42ac2dc6a5/clpqr/class.pl 7. OSI Status: Unknown 8. Example Projects: https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/packages-clpqr

[swinslow]

+1 to add. Although the SPDX license inclusion principles are more tailored towards licenses than exceptions, I think the comments above are helpful in considering it.

It certainly appears to be widely used, not just in SWI-Prolog within Fedora but also in other projects on Github (many of which appear to be redistributions of code from SWI-Prolog).

[jlovejoy]

+1 to add as well. It's annoyingly close to an existing exception, but I think that addition of "compiled with a Free Software compiler" warrants its own identifier.

I think the identifer that @jamesjer has chosen seems sensible too

[swinslow]

License Inclusion Decision

Decision:

• [X] approved
• [ ] not approved

License full name

SWI exception

Short ID

SWI-exception

XML markup

Suggest none for now. It's possible that the reference to the GPL could be made replaceable text if this is actually used as an exception to other licenses, but probably not needed for the initial submission.

Additional rationale or notes on decision:

Note that this is an exception, not a license, so it goes on the Exceptions List

[swinslow]

Text of exception:

As a special exception, if you link this library with other files, compiled with a Free Software compiler, to produce an executable, this library does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.