RE: Duplicate license

2017-06-01 Thread gary
It looks like they were both added in the same commit on August 7, 2014. Gary From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Kate Stewart Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 7:56 AM To: J Lovejoy Cc: SPDX-legal Subject: Re: Duplicate license Hi

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread W. Trevor King
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".

RE: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread Smith, McCoy
I think we should probably have the author listed (if one is doing such a thing) as Intel Corp., since they own all my copyrights (at least the ones authored within the scope of my employment, which this was). Also, that allows for some degree of continuity in the event I’m no longer here. At

RE: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread Smith, McCoy
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 and to make it all fit together. For those interested, the

RE: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread Wheeler, David A
> 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.

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread Richard Fontana
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.

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread W. Trevor King
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

RE: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread Zavras, Alexios
I agree with Jilayne, and this is also the reason I’d prefer to avoid the “with” even in the long license title. Of course, McCoy has also written some “pluggable” patent wording that could be combined with other licenses in theory. If he wants to submit it to SPDX, maybe this could be an “exce

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread J Lovejoy
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

Re: licenses in other languages (not English)

2017-06-01 Thread J Lovejoy
oops. Thanks! > On Jun 1, 2017, at 11:25 AM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:13:14PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > … all on one wiki page for reference and further discussion. > > For anyone who needs a link, that page is [1]. > > Cheers, > Trevor > > [1]: https://wiki.spd

Re: licenses in other languages (not English)

2017-06-01 Thread W. Trevor King
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:13:14PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: … all on one wiki page for reference and further discussion. For anyone who needs a link, that page is [1]. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/non-English-licenses -- This email may be signed or encrypted with Gn

Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent)

2017-06-01 Thread W. Trevor King
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

Re: Duplicate license

2017-06-01 Thread Kate Stewart
Hi Jilayne, We had Zlib in SPDX 1.0 (see appendix 1) in 2011. Both Nunit and zlib-acknowledgement are introduced in SPDX 2.0 (2015), but neither how up in SPD