Richard, Can you update the OSI URL to the short identifier - I see it got added in the parenthetical, but the URL did not get updated as per usual process. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent <https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent>
Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead [email protected] > On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jilayne, > > Short identifier, yes - I will make those changes shortly. OSI has not > been attempting to track the SPDX full names and has not been trying > to replace the OSI-used names with SPDX full names, for example in > listings of licenses or headings of license pages. > > In most cases I think the SPDX full name is either the same as the > OSI-used name or is substantially the same. But, unlike the situation > for the short identifiers which have been somewhat successful, I do > not see any signs of a community or industry tendency to adopt the > SPDX full names. In a few cases I think the full name used by SPDX > would be impractical or confusing for OSI to use, and in a few cases I > consider the SPDX full name to be wrong (for example, the name does > not match the name of the license that is officially noted in the > canonical license text). Anyway, I don't particularly see a benefit in > non-SPDX adoption of the SPDX full names. > > I assumed McCoy was not requesting that the OSI change "BSD+Patent" to > the SPDX full name for OSI purposes. I would recommend against this > for reasons I've already stated -- most importantly I think > "BSD+Patent" is a better name than " BSD-2-Clause plus Patent > License", and "BSD-2-Clause" is not yet a standard *full* name for the > 2-clause BSD license in the open source community. But if McCoy wants > to change the OSI name of BSD+Patent he can request that by contacting > the OSI or through license-review. > > Richard > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:02:52AM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: >> Thanks McCoy! We’ll get this on the SPDX License List for the next release. >> I trust OSI will update their page with the short identifier and full name >> accordingly as well. >> >> Cheers, >> Jilayne >> >> SPDX Legal Team co-lead >> [email protected] >> >> >>> On Jun 19, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Smith, McCoy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> All: >>> >>> After some back and forth with Jilayne, we believe the best naming approach >>> (for SPDX purposes) from the “BSD+Patent >>> <https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent>” license recently added to >>> the OSI list to be: >>> >>> Full name: BSD-2-Clause plus Patent License >>> >>> SPDX Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent >>> >>> [Note there is something that Facebook is using that they have recently >>> started calling “ <>BSD+Patents >>> <https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556>” but this isn’t on the >>> OSI list nor is it a fully intact license, but a BSD 3-clause with a >>> separate additional patent grant found elsewhere; I’m not sure how SPDX >>> might (or has) handled that although I think you treat additional grants >>> appended to existing OSI licenses differently]. >>> >>> This approach is most consistent with naming conventions used by SPDX and >>> OSI, and keeping in mind concerns about using special characters (“+”) in >>> certain contexts in which mechanical/computerized review is used. >>> >>> Let me know if you have any questions on this. >>> >>> McCoy Smith >>> Intel Corporation >>> Law & Policy Group >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Spdx-legal mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal >>> <https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Spdx-legal mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal > > > -- > Richard Fontana > Senior Commercial Counsel > Red Hat
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
