< bcc general list as FYI for anyone who wants to follow the discussion, but moving to legal list>
Quick search shows: - both version were on the list when we moved to the XML format in 2016 - email archive https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/topic/22080449#817 <https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/topic/22080449#817> - shows discussion for zip in Feb 2014, added for v1.20 of the license list (also see: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Consideration <https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Consideration> and https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-02-20 <https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-02-20> However, I’m not clear on if that was both versions or what… a ha! search on wiki meeting minutes then found this: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-06-26 <https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-06-26> regarding diff b/w 1.0..5 and 1.0.6 we should check 1.0.7 and 8 against matching guidelines. that’s all I have for now, it’s late. higher power, eh? ;) Cheers, Jilayne PS given this quick trip back in time at our process flow for new licenses back then… OMG, LOOK HOW FAR WE’VE COME!!!! > On Jul 29, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Mark Atwood via lists.spdx.org > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > I’ve started looking at the license and the SPDX identifiers on the “bzip2” > project. > > The license looks like a unsurprising BSD variant, but weirdly it’s been > getting a versioned license ID with each release version. The difference > between two version seems to be entirely just the data and the software > version. > > Can this instead just match against one of the BSD variant templates? > > Why does bzip2 get so finely versioned licensed identifiers? Do we plan on > created a new license identifier when bzip2 releases a version 1.0.9? > > ..m > > > Mark Atwood <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Principal, Open Source > +1-206-604-2198 > > > > From: Cressey, Ben <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 11:03 AM > To: Atwood, Mark <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: etaoin, iliana <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: SPDX license identifier for bzip2 > > Hi Mark, > > iliana suggested I run this by you, as a higher power in the SPDX org. > > I’m looking to package bzip2 for Bottlerocket. It has an odd license that > Fedora dubs “BSD” but which SPDX has a versioned license for: > https://spdx.org/licenses/bzip2-1.0.5.html > <https://spdx.org/licenses/bzip2-1.0.5.html> > https://spdx.org/licenses/bzip2-1.0.6.html > <https://spdx.org/licenses/bzip2-1.0.6.html> > > The upstream author seems to revise the license with each new version, though > 1.0.7 and 1.0.8 are close except for the date and version: > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=bzip2.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE;hb=bzip2-1.0.7 > <https://sourceware.org/git/?p=bzip2.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE;hb=bzip2-1.0.7> > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=bzip2.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE;hb=bzip2-1.0.8 > <https://sourceware.org/git/?p=bzip2.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE;hb=bzip2-1.0.8> > > iliana recommended that I use the “bzip2-1.0.6” identifier for now. > > Perhaps the author could be persuaded to tweak the license so that it doesn’t > need a new SPDX identifier for every release? Maybe it doesn’t matter and > 1.0.6 is close enough until they change the text in a significant way again? > > Thanks, > Ben > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1331): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1331 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/75871014/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/leave/2655439/1698928721/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
