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
+++ Kyle Mitchell [02/06/17 13:53 -0700]:
From the point of view of package managers using SPDX
expression syntax in metadata, very strong preference
for a unitary identifier like "BSDplusPatents" over a
license exception.
To me there's a more basic objection: it is not presented as an
"excepti
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
>From the point of view of package managers using SPDX
expression syntax in metadata, very strong preference
for a unitary identifier like "BSDplusPatents" over a
license exception.
Long story short, using
BSD-2-Clause WITH Intel-Patents-Exception
or equivalent would be hard for npm package
So, in general I like “plus” rather than “with” (and “+” over “plus”) although
I can understand when you’re dealing with automated systems certain symbols
can’t be used as they represent operands. I’ll let you decide if “plus” (or
“+”) is problematic.
If you think it helps to also indicate this
None yet. Wanted to get OSI approval before we started using it. It'll
hopefully go out first through an Intel project when we find an appropriate
candidate, sometime later in the year.
-Original Message-
From: Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2
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
