Hi SPDX, I was refreshing the license info on a Debian package and found two licenses that seemed to be MIT-variants that I wasn't sure about. The reason I looked at it was mostly technical as the current way to identify them was triggering a lintian warning, but as I said I wondered what would be correct.
I was not finding the two derivatives in your license list at [1] nor as an exception in [2]. There are already a bunch of MIT-* identifiers, but none matched the two that I had. So I had no "official identifiers" to use and just came up with two for now. I changed the identifiers like - MIT(*) -> MIT-ibm - MIT(**) -> MIT-no-ad and that satisfies Lintian at least. The full text of those can be found at [3][4]. I'm full of questions: - having a look at them, would you think they should be added to your list and get assigned official identifiers? - Are these even licenses on their own that deserve an ID? - Would it need the project or License owner to do such a request? - I'm neither of that and just looked at it by accident - If needed I'd be ok to file an issue as outlined in [5] and discuss, but I'm not sure I could do much more on it. [1]:https://spdx.org/licenses/ [2]: https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html [3]: https://github.com/vmware/open-vm-tools/blob/master/open-vm-tools/lib/misc/base64.c#L4 [4]: https://github.com/vmware/open-vm-tools/blob/master/open-vm-tools/services/plugins/resolutionSet/libvmwarectrl.h#L4 [5]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md -- Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1419): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1419 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/84078316/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/leave/2655439/21656/1698928721/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
