Ok, so let me see if I can sum up the issues that have been brought up on this thread…
1) Scott asks if anyone has seen this license 2) should we add it to list? 3) possible need for allowing other list maintainers to use a short identifier that "works" with SPDX and SPDX LIcense List 4) statement on license proliferation needed? 5) freeware licenses suggested added to SPDX License List Um, where do I begin? As for the original question – no, Scott, I haven't seen this one, as far as I can remember; but I have seen many licenses like this; what I mean by that is a short, very permissive license text that does not match to any specific license (such as MIT or BSD). In terms of whether this one (or this type in general) should be added to the list, I would defer to the same process and criteria as any license to be added. I agree with Tom AND Philippe in regards to how broad the SPDX License LIst should be. That is, it should be broad, but with limitation. The goal is clearly stated (see first paragraph at top of this page: http://spdx.org/content/license-list) and the intention is not to endorse any particular license, but rather the license list should serve a very practical purpose. That being said and given the vast number of licenses like this (short, varied, permissive), a balance must be struck to not bloat the list to the point of being difficult to use. One very practical matter with these kinds of license is how to name them, as they often have no name, thus forcing us to make one up… problems here, as you can imagine… considering we are currently discussing the license list guidelines (for how to decide what to include or not include), I would recommend all on this thread to check out the last couple meeting minutes on the topic and weigh in there. As for Guillaume's idea of having a letter reserved for short identifiers for other license lists to use (M would not work – MPL!! We might have to use a symbol or X? Would have to check current short identifiers for a letter not being used… :) - this is an interesting idea that seems rather easy to implement, but could also cause other problems. I was not aware of the use case cited and we'll have to check with the tech team on that. ?? As for a statement regarding license proliferation – this might be a good clarification in our literature, not sure if necessary, but certainly would not hurt. If someone wants to take a first stab at drafting a short (no more than a few sentences) explanation, the legal team can then review. Finally, in regards to freeware licenses (e.g. Oracle Binary Code License) - we have discussed this several times and has been part of on-going discussion on license list guidelines (see comment above), so I'm not going to repeat it here, but again, please review those notes and join that discussion on the calls. So, in sum – we have a bunch of different threads that came out of one curious license!! Perhaps we can separate these into a few sub-threads for ease of following? We have set out various projects for the legal team to work on (with project owners) this year, so if there is a new project that we should try to add, then let's look into doing that so it gets proper attention going forward. Thanks for all the interest!!! - Jilayne From: <Meier>, Roger <r.me...@siemens.com<mailto:r.me...@siemens.com>> Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:16 AM To: Tom Incorvia <tom.incor...@microfocus.com<mailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com>>, "guillaume.rouss...@antelink.com<mailto:guillaume.rouss...@antelink.com>" <guillaume.rouss...@antelink.com<mailto:guillaume.rouss...@antelink.com>>, SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>>, "spdx-t...@fossbazaar.org<mailto:spdx-t...@fossbazaar.org>" <spdx-t...@fossbazaar.org<mailto:spdx-t...@fossbazaar.org>> Subject: RE: A non-standard "permissive" license I fully agree on this, all licenses should be on the list (including Licenses such as Oracle Binary License). A prefix to identify local/private maintained licenses would be great. ==> use one license database -roger From: spdx-tech-boun...@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-tech-boun...@lists.spdx.org> [mailto:spdx-tech-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Tom Incorvia Sent: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 12:38 To: guillaume.rouss...@antelink.com<mailto:guillaume.rouss...@antelink.com>; spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>; spdx-t...@fossbazaar.org<mailto:spdx-t...@fossbazaar.org> Subject: RE: A non-standard "permissive" license Hi Guillaume and SPDX Legal, I believe that we will be best served by having as broad a license list as possible, and to have every license on the list be supported. If the Leptonica license occurs in the wild and has consistent, matchable license text, lets vet it an put it into the SPDX list just like any other license. Thanks, Tom Tom Incorvia tom.incor...@microfocus.com<mailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com> Direct: (512) 340-1336 Mobile: (408) 499 6850 From:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org> [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Guillaume Rousseau Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:24 AM To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>; spdx-t...@fossbazaar.org<mailto:spdx-t...@fossbazaar.org> Subject: Re: A non-standard "permissive" license Indeed we have been many time through the issue concerning "rare license". I understand very well that spdx can not cover/support every licenses. But should be able to extend internal license knowledge base guarantying there will be no license acronym conflict in the further versions of SPDX. Could we implement a rule saying that SPDX acronym will never start by "M-" which will allow us to implement specific acronym miscellaneous licenses not supported by spdx. Another way to do it could be to allow 2 acronyms in the standard like SPDX-GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0 ? I prefer the first one. I don't remember if this point has already been pointed out and discussed so I put legal and tech mailing list in cc. Guillaume Le 05/03/13 00:34, Dennis Clark a écrit : This license text appears to be from Leptonica: https://github.com/rajbot/autocrop/blob/master/leptonica-1.68/leptonica-license.txt The tortured grammar of this sentence is unique and I don't think it can be found in any of the SPDX licenses: "- No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the - consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any - particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in - writing." A very rare license indeed! Hope this was helpful, Dennis Clark Software Auditor www.nexb.com<http://www.nexb.com> dmcl...@nexb.com<mailto:dmcl...@nexb.com> 510-517-9659 On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Lamons, Scott (Open Source Program Office) <scott.lam...@hp.com<mailto:scott.lam...@hp.com>> wrote: We came across this license in a recent open source review. Fossology mis-identified this as GPL which is clearly a bug and it's being fixed. However, my question is... would this match any existing SPDX license? - Copyright (C) 2001 XXX. All rights reserved. - This software is distributed in the hope that it will be - useful, but with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. - No author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the - consequences of using this software, or for whether it serves any - particular purpose or works at all, unless he or she says so in - writing. Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and - redistribute this source code, for commercial or non-commercial - purposes, with the following restrictions: (1) the origin of this - source code must not be misrepresented; (2) modified versions must - be plainly marked as such; and (3) this notice may not be removed - or altered from any source or modified source distribution. _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal -- Guillaume ROUSSEAU CEO, Co-Founder, Antelink Président, Cofondateur, Antelink 18, rue Yves Toudic, 75010, Paris 10ème, France http://www.antelink.com/ Office : +33 1 42 39 30 78 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
