> From: W. Trevor King [mailto:wk...@tremily.us]
> There's some previous discussion in [1,2].  The current recommendation is to
> define a custom ID for the patent rider and use that [3], for
> example:
>   BSD-3-Clause AND FB-Patents-2.0

I'm happy with that instead.. I just want a standard way to refer to it.
I'd prefer "Facebook-Patents-2.0" instead of "FB" because "FB" isn't as obvious,
but that is a nit, and either name (or many others) would resolve the problem.

HOWEVER:  This is name is NOT in either:
- https://spdx.org/licenses/
- https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html

This id, whatever it is, needs to get into one of those lists *pronto*.
The bug report referenced here is from *2015*, which is ancient history:
> [3]: https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292#c2
"Use a licenseRef" is not a reasonable option for a lot of people.
Many tools *only* share license expressions, not entire SPDX files,
and this is an important situation.

Thanks so much!  This issue of "identifying a special patent rider"
is *exactly* the kind of thing that SPDX license expressions can help with...
SPDX just needs to add the necessary license or license exception
to handle it.

--- David A. Wheeler

Spdx-legal mailing list

Reply via email to