https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1341
Bug ID: 1341
Summary: Clarify which licenses follow Open Source Definition
(OSI Approved), and not refer to all the licenses in
the license list as open source licenses.
Product: SPDX
Version: 2.1
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: major
Priority: P2
Component: Spec
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Classification: Unclassified
Web site makes explicit listing of OSI approved licenses, and the request is
that we make it explicit in the list in the specification too. Also, be
careful when using the term "open source" licenses in the spec, to make sure
they do refer to only the
OSI approved ones, rather than the entire license list.
>From discussion with OSI representative (Stefano Zaccharoli):
> There was another point related to this that we discussed though: we
> would like to make sure that SPDX material does not mislead people into
> believe that non OSI approved licenses are open source and conformant to
> the OSD. To that end, after our conversation at FOSDEM we did a quick
> exercise and looked up the use of the expression "open source" in
> version 2.0 of the SPDX spec. Most of the uses of "open source" in the
> spec are fine, but a few are not; specifically:
>
> - 2 cases on page 64, section "Appendix I: SPDX License List". I quote
> from there: "The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found open
> source licenses and exceptions for the purposes of being able to
> easily and efficiently identify such licenses and exceptions in an
> SPDX document." (the other occurrence is similar in spirit but relates
> to license exceptions)
>
> And the text blurb at http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list is similar.
>
> We take issue with uses like the above because readers might end up
> believing that all licenses in the SPDX license list are "open source",
> which is not the case [1].
>
> Therefore we would like to ask you that, in addition to the OSI approved
> column in the license table, the SPDX working group refrains to
> generally use "open source" to refer to all licenses in your list. Do
> you think you could do that? It will take some rephrasing, but only in a
> couple of places of what we've seen up to now, and a little bit of care
> in new text that you might publish in the future.
please reword
intro to license list, and in Appendix in spec, to make sure its understood
not all of the licenses listed are open source. For the ones that are, please
clarify which of the licenses in the Appendix are actually OSI approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
