As it was explained in the bake-off: the disclaimer (second paragraph in the
license text shown in https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html) is all enclosed in
square brackets ("[...]"), and therefore was considered optional. The same
happens with some individual words ("and", "that", etc.) of the first paragraph.
Therefore some text matching only the first paragraph can definitely match the
complete license. That was the case found.
Yes, once this is correctly rendered in a template, this would be much more
-- zvr –
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne
Sent: Friday, 7 October, 2016 17:17
To: J Lovejoy <opensou...@jilayne.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; SPDX-legal <spdx-le...@lists.spdx.org>
Subject: Re: HPND & NTP
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:20 AM, J Lovejoy <opensou...@jilayne.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> During the SPDX bake-off it came up that NTP
> https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html can match to HPND
> https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html due to the template nature of
> HPND. The folks in the bakeoff wanted to know if we ought to
> deprecate one of these licenses in favor of using the other or how a
> tool should reconcile which license to “pick” where both could be a
> valid answer. Talking about this here in Berlin and looking at the
> licenses, can we please discuss the following items on the next legal call:
> 1) Both of these licenses are OSI-approved, which is why they are both
> on the SPDX License List. Given that we endeavor to have all
> OSI-approved licenses on the SPDX License List (even if they are old
> or have been voluntarily deprecated by the author, as has HPND), so I
> don’t view deprecation as an option. All agree?
> 2) As to HPND, we did not have markup for this license, but it needs
> it - Sam has added markup to the XML template and Brad has reviewed.
> It is flagged for review by the legal team:
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/89/files - can we get
> another set of eyes on this, both from the legal perspective and to
> check the markup?
> 3) OSI has comments as to how to “match” this license at the bottom of
> their page - https://opensource.org/licenses/HPNDl - should we add
> this to the Notes field, as is suggested in the XML file (do we really
> need it, especially if we have the markup and since the line about
> white space and capitalization merely repeats a couple of our matching
> 4) I would recommend adding a comment in the Notes field for each
> license along the lines of the following:
> - for NTP: "This license is the same as HPND, when taking into
> consideration the templatizing options given in that license. This is
> included as a separate license on the SPDX License List because it is
> separately approved by the OSI.”
> - HPND: “Due to the templatization options of this license, it can be
> the same text as NTP license. This is included as a separate license
> on the SPDX License List because it is separately approved by the OSI.”
> Please edit as needed. Perhaps we can then ask the OSI to add similar
> language on their pages as well, so it is all consistent.
This all make sense. The only point is that the licenses are not the same, but
are similar: the HPND has an additional warranty disclaimer.
So I am not sure why this would ever be an issue matching-wise and this may not
warrant a note in the license.
Spdx-legal mailing list
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
Spdx-tech mailing list