On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:51:45PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com]
> > Adding to the confusion is that FB frequently refers to their React.js 
> > license as
> > "BSD+Patents" (plural), although that nomenclature appears somewhat
> > recent (and, I think, post-dates the submission of the "BSD+Patent" --
> > singular -- license to OSI in early 2016).
> 
> I can't be the only one to confuse "BSD+Patent" with "BSD+Patents".
> 
> But in that case, I think there needs to be a *speedy* assignment (hah!) of
> a SPDX license id/expression to the React.js license.  I'll file
> a request separately to this list.

I think this is a good idea. But I encourage SPDX to come up with an
identifier that takes into account all the circumstances surrounding
this license, including the current controversy (whether it's
justified or not from anyone's perspective).

Suppose BSD+Patent (the real one) hadn't existed -- I could see SPDX
picking "BSD-3-Clause-Patent" for the Facebook license. Or even now,
SPDX might foreseeably do this, since, after all, who would mix up
"BSD-2-Clause-Patent" with "BSD-3-Clause-Patent"? Except the chances
of a mixup by people actually using SPDX short identifiers in the wild
are very high.

I've seen some evidence that "BSD-3-Clause-Clear" is being
misunderstood by people engaging with license metadata to mean, I
guess, "the 3-clause BSD license in some very clear sense" instead of
"the 3-clause BSD-derived license which includes a sentence that says
you don't get any patent licenses". (The possible effect is that Clear
BSD is getting somewhat less marginalized than it otherwise would be,
which may have some interesting implications.) Had SPDX chosen
"ClearBSD" as the identifier -- i.e. an identifier closer to the
actual name of the license, not the reformulated SPDX full name no one
uses in real life ("BSD 3-Clause Clear"), I don't think that would
have happened.

So, please, use something like BSD-3-Clause-React, or
BSD-3-Clause-Facebook, or React, or (this might require a change to
the definition of WITH) BSD-3-Clause WITH React-PATENTS, rather than
'BSD-3-Clause-Patent'.

Richard

_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Reply via email to