Hi,
Just a reminder that we'll be doing a walkthrough of the draft
SPDX 2.1 specification with the material the tech team has
been working on over the last year included.
Link to the google document we'll be reviewing is:
Can there please *ALSO* be standard fields to report if the license is:
* a free license as approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) [Proposed
field name: “FSF-approved”]
* a free license acceptable to Debian main [Proposed field name
“Debian-acceptable”]
* a "good" license according to
Matija,
I agree with your assessment; it is restrictive. On the other hand it seems to
me that in this case the restriction is a practical one motivated by liability
reasons, not a philosophical one which I believe the freedoms are intended to
protect.
Below is a expert from the criteria the
Hello SPDX,
Please consider including the TCP-wrappers template license in the SPDX license
list. This license is associated with a very common open source component,
TCP-Wrappers.
Although not used much outside of TCP-wrappers, this license is very frequently
referenced with regards to
Die 30. 03. 16 et hora 11.12.46 Sam Ellis scripsit:
> “You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended
> for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any
> nuclear facility.”.
FWIW, this would most probably fail the freedom 0 of the Free Software
Hi,
Please consider adding the following license to the SPDX license list:
Full name: BSD 3-clause w/nuclear disclaimer
Short identifier: BSD-3-Clause-NoNuclear
URL: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/licenses/bsd.txt
OSI approved: No
Explanation: This is a variant of BSD-3-Clause commonly
