Hi Jilayne,
I can see why SPDX would want to try to have some consistent approach
to forming identifiers for related licenses (although I think the
value of having a standard identifier is more important than
consistency across multiple identifiers).
My view is that an SPDX short identifier has
Hi All,
I probably should have explained this to begin with and Richard has now
provided some key background, which I’ll add to here:
OSI has adopted (and did endorse via a joint public announcement that was
probably back in 2011) the SPDX identifiers. This is implemented on the OSI
list via t
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 05:16:01PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> J Lovejoy:
> > Specifically, when adding other BSD-x-Clause licenses, we have tried to
> > follow the same pattern for the identifiers as it aids in identifying what
> > exactly the license is, which I think everyone finds helpfu
J Lovejoy:
> Specifically, when adding other BSD-x-Clause licenses, we have tried to
> follow the same pattern for the identifiers as it aids in identifying what
> exactly the license is, which I think everyone finds helpful! Hence the use
> of BSD-x-Clause- was intentional and thus, why I sugg
ne 02, 2017 8:34 AM
To: Smith, McCoy
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> The text for this license is BSD 2-clause, plus a patent grant.
> The patent grant is based primarily on the Apache 2.0 patent gra
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> The text for this license is BSD 2-clause, plus a patent grant.
> The patent grant is based primarily on the Apache 2.0 patent grant,
> with some language from the Eclipse patent grant, and some relatively
> slight modifications for clarity an
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 05:29:52PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> > So basically “use an exception when the author asks for it,
> > otherwise use a new license”.
>
> Typically the "WITH" clauses are for a separate fragment of text
> that can be added to the "end" of a base license as a "rider".
: J Lovejoy ; SPDX-legal ;
Smith, McCoy
Subject: Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:28:55PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:39:21AM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote:
> > As for an identifier, there is no reason to use “OSI” in the
>
attached markup shows the origin of all the text from
the license.
-Original Message-
From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 12:29 PM
To: J Lovejoy
Cc: Richard Fontana ; SPDX-legal
; Smith, McCoy
Subject: Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent
> So basically “use an exception when the author asks for it, otherwise use a
> new license”.
Typically the "WITH" clauses are for a separate fragment of text that can be
added to the "end" of a base license as a "rider". It looks like this license
text has it all merged in a single document.
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:28:55PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:39:21AM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote:
> > As for an identifier, there is no reason to use “OSI” in the
> > identifier - we have all of the OSI-approved licenses included on
> > the SPDX License List.
>
> Right.
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:39:21AM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote:
> This would not be treated as an exception because it was drafted
> (and submitted to the OSI) as a complete license, not as an
> exception or separate, add-able text to BSD-2-Clause. While you
> raise a good point about the potential diff
“exception” (non-OSI approved, obviously).
-- zvr –
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, 1 June, 2017 19:39
To: W. Trevor King
Cc: Smith, McCoy ; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)
Hi
Hi Trevor,
This would not be treated as an exception because it was drafted (and submitted
to the OSI) as a complete license, not as an exception or separate, add-able
text to BSD-2-Clause. While you raise a good point about the potential
different ways one might express such a situation as thi
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:57PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote:
> Following our existing pattern for variations on BSD (listed below
> for reference), we might want to consider:
> Full name: BSD 2-clause plus Patent (could also be BSD 2-Clause with
> Patent - as the use of with in the full name is not pro
15 matches
Mail list logo
