https://wiki.spdx.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Dmclark&feedformat=atomSPDX Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T12:24:09ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.23.13https://wiki.spdx.org/view/GSOC/GSOC_ProjectIdeasGSOC/GSOC ProjectIdeas2019-01-09T17:40:43Z<p>Dmclark: Changed "2018" to "2019"</p>
<hr />
<div><br /><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:150%">'''Welcome to the 2019 SPDX Google Summer of Code Project Page'''</span><br />
<br />
See the [https://rtgdk.github.io/spdx-gsoc-proposal.html proposal template] if you are interested in submitting a Google Summer of Code proposal.<br />
<br />
Should you have questions please do not hesitate to contact one of the mentors directly.<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== What is SPDX ? ==<br />
<br />
First and foremost we are a community dedicated to solving the issues and problems around Open Source licensing and compliance. The SPDX work group (part of the Linux Foundation) consists of individuals, community members, and representatives from companies, foundations and organizations who use or are considering using the SPDX standard. The work group operates much like a meritocratic, consensus-based community project; that is, anyone with an interest in the project can join the community, contribute to the specification, and participate in the decision-making process. We come from many different backgrounds including open source developers, lawyers, consultants and business professionals, many of who have been involved with license compliance and identification for years.<br />
<br />
As part of this effort we have developed a set of collateral that can be used:<br />
<br />
* [https://spdx.org/using-spdx License List and Short Identifiers]<br />
* [https://spdx.org/using-spdx SPDX Specification for generating SPDX Doucments in either RDF or Tag/Value format]<br />
* [https://spdx.org/tools A set of basic tools for working with SPDX Documents]<br />
* [https://spdx.org/using-spdx License Identifiers in source]<br />
<br />
== Why choose an SPDX Project? ==<br />
<br />
Contributing to one of the SPDX projects below will provide a valuable contribution to developers and/or users of open source software. We believe you will find the projects both technically challenging and rewarding. In essence we believe you will be able to look back one day and I say I was part of that effort.<br />
<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
= Getting Involved =<br />
<br />
Beyond working wth your mentor(s) we highly encourage students who select one of these projects to get involved with the SPDX community via our technical working group. Interaction with the technical team is primarily done via its mailing list (see resources). There is however a weekly call you could join as well. All of the daily work for the Tech team is done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Resources ==<br />
<br />
* [http://spdx.org SPDX website]<br />
* [https://spdx.org/specifications SPDX Specification]<br />
* [https://spdx.org/tools SPDX Workgroup Tools webpage]<br />
* [https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech SPDX tech mailing list]<br />
<br />
<br />
=SPDX Workgroup Tooling Projects=<br />
These projects are aimed at contributing to the SPDX tools to help reduce the effort to create SPDX and increase the accuracy of the SPDX documents.<br />
<br />
==Update Parser Libraries to SPDX 2.1 for GO==<br />
Update one of the SPDX GO libraries to the SPDX 2.1 specification. The SPDX 2.1 specification is a major upgrade from SPDX 1.2 supporting relationships between SPDX documents and SPDX elements.<br />
====Skills Needed====<br />
* Development skills in the GO language<br />
* Experience with parser development<br />
* Understanding of RDF and XML<br />
====Background Information====<br />
SPDX currently provides libraries supporting the reading and writing of SPDX document. Currently, only Java libraries support the new SPDX 2.1 specification. The Python libraries and the GO libraries support version 1.2 of the spec. The libraries must support both RDF/XML import/export as well as tag/value import/export. The [[https://github.com/spdx/tools-go SPDX git repository]] SPDX Tools project contains the source code for the libraries.<br />
<br />
====Available Mentors====<br />
[mailto:gary@sourceauditor.com Gary O'Neall]<br />
<br />
==Additional Format Support for the Python Libraries==<br />
Add the ability to read and write XML, JSON, and YAML formats of the SPDX documents.<br />
<br />
====Skills Needed====<br />
* Development skills in the Python language<br />
* Experience with parser development<br />
* Understanding of XML, JSON and YAML<br />
<br />
====Background Information====<br />
SPDX 2.1 specification supports reading and writing RDF/XML and a tag/value format for SPDX documents. Version 2.2 of the specification will add support for XML, JSON and YAML. The Python libraries currently support reading and writing the RDF/XML and tag/value. This project would extend the parsing and file generation capabilities of the python libraries to include XML, JSON and YAML format. <br />
<br />
The current python libraries are in the [[https://github.com/spdx/tools-python SPDX python tools git repository]]<br />
<br />
====Available Mentors====<br />
[mailto:gary@sourceauditor.com Gary O'Neall]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Port SPDX license expression library to Ruby, JavaScript and Java==<br />
The [[https://github.com/nexB/license-expression/]|licens_expressionlibrary]] provides comprehensive support license expression using a boolean engine for Python.<br />
The goal of this project is to port and/or package this library for JavaScript, Ruby and Java, considering either code conversion tools, alternative Python implementations (e.g. Jython) or calling Python from another language to bring the same features to these other languages.<br />
====Skills Needed====<br />
* Development skills in Python, Java, Ruby, JavaScript.<br />
<br />
====Background Information====<br />
See https://github.com/spdx/tools-python/issues/10 and https://github.com/nexB/license-expression/<br />
====Available Mentors====<br />
[mailto:pombredanne@nexb.com Philippe Ombredanne]<br />
<br />
=SPDX Specification Projects=<br />
The following projects contribute directly to the creation or validation of the SPDX 2.1 specification.<br />
<br />
== SPDX Specification in MarkDown ==<br />
Migrate the specification from Google docs to GitHub+MarkDown based toolchain capable of generating HTML, PDF and EPUB<br />
====Skills Needed====<br />
* Understanding of documentation tooling<br />
* Web-development skills to style HTML version<br />
====Background Information====<br />
The [https://spdx.org/specifications 2.1 SPDX specification] PDF and HTML version have several issues.<br />
1. Navigation through both document is difficult as a index is missing<br />
2. Switching to GitHub+MarkDown will remove friction for contributors to comment/amend the specification. Common workflow within the OSS community<br />
====Available Mentors====<br />
[mailto:kstewart@linuxfoundation.org Kate Stewart]<br />
[mailto:thomas.steenbergen@here.com Thomas Steenbergen]<br />
<br />
<br />
== SPDX Specification Wiki Examples of Package Managers ==<br />
SPDX specification describes on a high level how to describe package, files and snippets but lack examples how to capture the use of package managers<br />
====Skills Needed====<br />
* Understanding of package managers <br />
====Background Information====<br />
To encourage adoption of SPDX it should be clear how to encode the use of common programming language package managers within SPDX. The aim of this project is to create example per build tool/package manager so that not only as example to the community but also form the input for SPDX tech team discussions and future tooling development<br />
<br />
Initial package managers:<br />
* Bower<br />
* CocoaPods<br />
* Gradle<br />
* gem<br />
* gitmodules<br />
* Maven<br />
* npm<br />
* PyPi<br />
* sbt<br />
* NuGet<br />
<br />
====Available Mentors====<br />
[mailto:thomas.steenbergen@here.com Thomas Steenbergen]<br />
[mailto:stewart@linux.com Kate Stewart]<br />
<br />
== SPDX Specification Views for legal counsels and developers ==<br />
The proposal is to see if it possible to deduct large SPDX documents into a small subset SPDX document providing a specific reduced "views" on larger data.<br />
====Skills Needed====<br />
* Understanding of compliance needs of legal counsels and developers so we can remove friction to adopt SPDX<br />
====Background Information====<br />
SPDX documents commonly contain 100s, if not 1000s of entries making it hard for a human to make manual corrections or draw conclusions. No scanner can provide 100% complete data human corrections are usual needed. The aim from this proposal is twofold:<br />
1. Enable developers with a "code view" of tool-generated SPDX document close to the code they work on to enable them to make corrections to the SPDX data. For instance amend SPDX package tag values or model package dependencies not detected by used scanner.<br />
2. Provide legal counsels with a "package and limited file view" to enable legal conclusions<br />
====Available Mentors====<br />
[mailto:thomas.steenbergen@here.com Thomas Steenbergen]<br />
[mailto:ybronshteyn@blackducksoftware.com Yev Bronshteyn]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2017-05-04General Meeting/Minutes/2017-05-042017-05-04T16:19:32Z<p>Dmclark: /* Attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div>* Attendance: 10<br />
* Lead by Phil Odence<br />
* Minutes of April meeting approved <br />
<br />
<br />
== Guest Presentation- Philippe ==<br />
<br />
* ScanCode<br />
** Open source project<br />
** Tool to enable developers to find the license and origin of components they are using<br />
* Features<br />
** Accurate<br />
*** Scanned Linux kernel and results were superior to two other tools that were tested<br />
** Handles source and binaries<br />
** Well tested and community maintained<br />
** Easy to improve license detection<br />
* How it works<br />
** Input: Simple test files<br />
** Performs a diff against a large number of licenses and mentions<br />
** Handles packages via package manager.<br />
** Uses natural language parser for copyrights<br />
** Output in SPDX (or JSON)<br />
* Two pieces ScanCode Toolkit and Code Manager<br />
* Other projects in code.org<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary ==<br />
<br />
* Restarted discussions about feature needs for next release<br />
** Looking at:<br />
*** Philippe’s results<br />
*** Debian<br />
*** Other testing results<br />
** Wiki page has ideas for next release or two<br />
*** Feel free to add there or via email<br />
* Also looking at putting together a test suite<br />
** Set of packages <br />
** Results to be compared<br />
* Google SoC<br />
** Select three proposals<br />
** Students being notified about now<br />
** Next steps<br />
*** Community bonding<br />
*** Working with Students<br />
*** Will provide status<br />
<br />
<br />
== Outreach Team Report - Jack ==<br />
<br />
* Working on Umbrella project<br />
** A wrapper around all the repositories for tools<br />
* Discussion of a tool certification project<br />
** Aiming to have done in Q1 18 timeframe<br />
** Initial testing at LinuxCon Europe. Prague in Oct<br />
* Call for Papers this week for NA LinuxCon, LA in August<br />
<br />
<br />
== Legal Team Report - Jilayne ==<br />
<br />
* Down to 24 licenses to review<br />
* Proposal for how to handle non-English licenses<br />
** Have handled some ad hoc<br />
** Need a broader policy<br />
** Will have implications for license matching guidelines<br />
<br />
<br />
== Attendees ==<br />
<br />
* Phil Odence, Black Duck<br />
* Kate Stewart, Linux Foundation<br />
* Gary O’Neill, SourceAuditor <br />
* Philippe Ombrédanne- nexB<br />
* Brad Edmondson, Harvard<br />
* Jilayne Lovejoy, ARM<br />
* Jack Manbeck, TI<br />
* Robin Gandhi, UNO<br />
* Kevin Nelson, Optum<br />
* Dennis Clark, nexB<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:General|Minutes]]<br />
[[Category:Minutes]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-10-29Legal Team/Minutes/2015-10-292015-10-30T00:55:08Z<p>Dmclark: /* Agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Attendees ==<br />
<br />
* Mark Gisi<br />
* Dennis Clark<br />
* Paul Madick<br />
* Phil Odence<br />
* Jilayne Lovejoy<br />
* Kris Reeves<br />
* Alan Tse<br />
* Gary O'Neall<br />
* Brad Edmondsen<br />
* Kate Stewart<br />
* Yev<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Kris’ proposal for matching guidelines templates: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Template_proposal<br />
<br />
Discussion on some of logistics of proposal:<br />
* question re: “enhanced format”, how generated? would be generated by tool b/c not maintainable by a human, would pull in other info, etc.<br />
* process: could probably automate adding some of tags from current scenario<br />
* conversion: automate a first pass of current license list to get tags, then some manual work<br />
* advantage of XML (versus current “custom” markup) is there is more XML use = more inclination for others to contribute to that end; this is probably the most compelling argument for moving to XML rather than some custom markup<br />
* all agreed that implementation needs to result in ONE “version” of license text that other “versions” could be generated from (e.g. human readable version, HTML, with markup)<br />
<br />
Discussion on purpose:<br />
*purpose: original markup use-case was comparing two licenses, not to provide full license searching/matching information (e.g. a license detection database); some of the decision in early days to limit scope was a bandwidth issue - so, is this something SPDX wants to take on now?<br />
* current markup is not even enough for the basic use-case of comparing two licenses, so end up needing to patch and then maintain that anyway<br />
* SPDX being a canonical database of licenses - this is a natural place to create and store this further information re: matching, have all the information in one place - everyone pretty much agreed on this point<br />
<br />
how will this be maintained?<br />
* separate workgroup to consider further? Agreed the “workgroup” is the people on this call, no need to separate out. need to know we want to move forward, then tech team can dive into specifics of proposal and implementation<br />
<br />
3 areas of change:<br />
# change in format of markup from “unique” to XML - no resistance to this<br />
# additional tags, some necessary for some of these new use cases - we knew we could use more all along, and additional tags align with current written matching guideline, so no real resistance here<br />
# switching from using spreadsheet to just XML text files; columns in spreadsheet now would have to be converted into new fields in XML file; then would have ONE file per license/exception (instead of list of all, plus file for actual license text)<br />
* could generate a spreadsheet from that, if that’s helpful for people to still have<br />
* spreadsheet does not lend itself to generating diffs; prone to human error<br />
* all-XML may be harder (for Jilayne) to maintain?<br />
* but all-XML will be more conducive to help from others<br />
<br />
next steps:<br />
* Resolve the UberConference 10 people limit, which was a big problem today since key people were not able to participate in the meeting.<br />
* Kate will bring up on tech calls in meantime so tech team can mull over specifics of current proposal (and make sure others who couldn't join this call are included, especially Sam Ellis and FOSSology folks)<br />
* we will have another joint call btw legal and tech team either on: (will resolve Uber conference 10 people limit before then!!<br />
** Dec 8th tech team time or <br />
** Dec 10 or tech team on 8th</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-08-20Legal Team/Minutes/2015-08-202015-08-21T00:55:39Z<p>Dmclark: /* Agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Attendees ==<br />
* Jilayne Lovejoy<br />
* Sam Ellis<br />
* Dennis Clark<br />
* Mark Gisi<br />
<br />
(limited attendance due to LinuxCon NA having just ended yesterday)<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
1) Update from LinuxCon - quick thoughts from Mark, but will do bigger update next call<br />
* Biggest SPDX-related meeting was the bakeoff went well, good feedback from that. <br />
* Gary gave his presentation - good showing there.<br />
* Mark gave a talk too, but not related to SPDX directly. Premise was: great sharing is happening, but if forget to include license info - the code ceases to be "open". And "grading" of projects by tool by WindRiver, showing example of Apache and FSF projects who get A+ <br />
<br />
2) Headers project: Mark working on drafting summary of issue and proposal; will send to group once in more firm, for review<br />
* discussed some further thoughts on Mark's proposal <br />
* discussed markup for standard headers: about 51 licneses with standard headers; HTML is not formatting correclty on web pages - this will be fixed as of 2.2 release at end of September<br />
* about 25 standard headers need markup, many of which have copyright notices<br />
* what about copyright notices? should they be in license text and headers at all? there is a separate field in SPDX spec for copyright notices, and matching guideline #10 http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines says to ignore copyright notice for purposes of matching license text, so maybe<br />
* * oddball case: when the copyright notice is not at top of license or header, but in middle of or part of text - previously decided that in this case, the copyright notice would get markup <br />
* * oddball case: when the license itself has copyright notice - previously decided that this would not get markup and be part of match. (should the matching guideline re: copyright notices mention this scenario?)<br />
* * for discussion on next legal call...<br />
* for replaceable text in standard headers, will add same markup as with licenses and use whatever is "original" (even if a blank line) as the example or original text when displayed on HTML pages<br />
<br />
Next call agenda:<br />
* more thorough update from LinuxCon<br />
* copyright notice discussion<br />
* discuss updates to new page on license matching related proposals (please review page in advance and add to Wiki page in meantime) <br />
http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Templatizing</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2015-03-05Legal Team/Minutes/2015-03-052015-03-19T16:52:28Z<p>Dmclark: /* Attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Attendees ==<br />
* Dennis Clark, nexB<br />
* Alan Tse, Western Digital<br />
* Sam Ellis, ARM<br />
* Mark Gisi, Wind River<br />
* Tom Vidal, Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
'''1) Collab Summit - quick update''': See links here to various updates, including slides from the 2.0 update that Kate, Gary, and Jack gave:http://spdx.org/SPDX-specifications/spdx-version-2.0<br />
<br />
'''2) 2.0 status update, overall''': General meeting rescheduled to next Thursday, March 12 and will focus on discussing rc3 with 2.0 going live a couple weeks after that (general plan) <br />
<br />
'''3) 2.0 status update for SPDX License List:''' we looked over some of the pages and identified some thing that can be improved for the official 2.0 release:<br />
* bold "License Expression Syntax" link so it stands out more<br />
* implement alternating colors in the license list and exceptions tables (because they currently look very "80s")<br />
* standard headers need cleaning up: formatting is not coming through (no line breaks) and some {{}} leftover<br />
* add a column in the master spreadsheet indicating which license .txt files include markup (for matching guidelines) - not sure if we need to track this, but better to have the info than not and wish we did later<br />
* when 2.0 goes live, make sure that all licenses and exceptions display and don't download (webpage configuration issue - check with Gary and LF folks on this)<br />
<br />
'''4) Things to consider or revisit post-2.0''':<br />
* Disjunctive license notices: should we capture common ones somehow? Is the license expression syntax enough to express these - what about when the notice includes some other info? How does one capture that, should we accommodate separately or maybe develop suggestions, examples, or best practices? See examples Sam sent, such as http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ or https://netbeans.org/about/legal/license.html <br />
* still need to look at some of the conjunctive licenses that are on license list and decide whether to break apart or leave as is<br />
* providing a recommended header for licenses that don't have a standard header; something SPDX could do as a way to encourage more consistency. dovetails with idea of using short identifiers, but Mark's idea here is to provide a bit more than that. <br />
* add markup for other common license variations<br />
<br />
<br />
Action Item for Everyone: Look over the license list web pages, related pages in spec, Git repository, etc. and provide feedback and attend the general meeting next week!!! :)</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-12-05T21:45:53Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>The SPDX Legal team tracks new '''License List Requests''' at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681 <br /><br />
Refer to the "Licenses Readme" worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
Older license requests from release 1.20 or earlier are identified in the table below. Entries submitted prior to release 1.18 had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''License Exceptions List Requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the "Exceptions Readme" worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-12-05T21:39:37Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>The SPDX Legal team tracks new '''License List Requests''' at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the "Licenses Readme" worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
Older license requests from release 1.20 or earlier are identified in the table below. Entries submitted prior to release 1.18 had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''License Exceptions List Requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the "Exceptions Readme" worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-12-05T21:36:44Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>The SPDX Legal team tracks new '''License List Requests''' at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the "Licenses Readme" worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
Older license requests from release 1.20 or earlier are identified in the table below. Entries submitted prior to release 1.18 had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''License Exceptions List Requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the README worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-12-05T21:35:09Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>The SPDX Legal team tracks new '''license list requests''' at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the "Licenses Readme" worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
Older license requests from release 1.20 or earlier are identified in the table below. Entries submitted prior to release 1.18 had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license Exceptions list requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the README worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T19:07:25Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track '''license list requests''' and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license Exceptions list requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the README worksheet in the document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T19:07:00Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track '''license list requests''' and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license Exceptions list requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br /><br />
Refer to the README worksheet in the for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T19:05:28Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track '''license list requests''' and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license Exceptions list requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 Refer to the README worksheet in that document for an explanation of each of the columns in the list.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T19:03:00Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track '''license list requests''' and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license Exceptions list requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T19:01:48Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track '''license list requests''' and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license exceptions list requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T18:59:24Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track '''license list requests''' and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license exceptions list requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T18:58:29Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track '''license list requests''' and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license exceptions list requests''' in the document at: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T18:19:00Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track '''license list requests''' and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks '''license exceptions list requests''' in this document: https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=0 <br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T18:17:16Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks license exceptions list requests in this document: <br />
<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T18:16:37Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
The Legal team also tracks license exceptions list requests in this document: <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s <br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T18:11:45Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T18:09:46Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-11-21T18:09:14Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Accepted in v1.20 ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2014-07-24Legal Team/Minutes/2014-07-242014-07-24T22:43:25Z<p>Dmclark: /* Attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Attendees ==<br />
<br />
* Jilayne Lovejoy<br />
* Tom Vidal<br />
* Dennis Clark<br />
* Paul Madick<br />
* James Roberts<br />
* Mark Gisi<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
1) The next release of the license list is coming together and almost ready! We will discuss any outstanding issues (below) and also seek some volunteers for helping review the list before publishing.<br />
* have not heard back from Fedora folks on outstanding questions there ...<br />
* missing "+" or later variations for AGPL, GDL ... - not going add now because will be deprecated in next license list release<br />
* zlib license issue: We have zlib License on the SPDX License List (http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html), which is OSI approved and on Fedora list (all the same license text and short identifier). However, OSI and Fedora call this "zlib/libpng License" - do we care that the full license names don't line up? especially consider that there is also a separate libpng license - http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt (which we have on SPDX-LL as libpng License (libpng)?<br />
** we have it more accurately represented in regards to the full license name, the short identifiers are aligned (most importantly) - so no need to change, but maybe just point this out to Fedora and OSI for their information.<br />
<br />
* need help reviewing for accuracy/second set of eyeballs before next release: Dennis volunteered to help; Jilayne will send him the .zip to review before official release (to look over in next week)<br />
<br />
* matching guidelines and re-formatting - could use some help on this task generally: Paul may be able to help; will connect next week on details<br />
<br />
2) Getting back on track for 2.0<br />
* update and discuss roadmap going forward on next call to get back on track for 2.0 tasks - namely, License Expression Syntax (Mark) and further review of License Exception List (Dennis)<br />
* standard headers issue: when we deprecate the + licenses (becuase will be represented with new license expression syntax "+" modifier) - we will lose the "or later version" text in corresponding standard headers (for GNU licenses) - what to do about this?<br />
** does anyone depend on the standard header field? could we get rid of it? maybe throw this out on the legal list and tech list and see what people have to say<br />
** it is a benefit to include the standard header as it gives something else (besides the entire text of the license) to search/identify the license on<br />
** various discussion about this field and (standard) headers generally<br />
** --> put out statement that we are thinking about removing this field and why - if someone has a reason for not removing, to say why and how to resolve)<br />
** Jilayne to draft such email, have Paul, Dennis, Mark review and then send to tech and legal mailing lists<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal|Minutes]]<br />
[[Category:Minutes]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:56:00Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| Ruby<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
<br />
The substantive part of the license text at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt will be added/updated in v1.20 of the SPDX License List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the proposed SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:51:17Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine License 2.00<br />
| Zend-2.00<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the proposed SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:46:17Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold <br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license <br />
The link to the older Zend-2.0 text is broken.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the proposed SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:39:01Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
<br />
Zend-2.0 will be added (same text as Fedora).<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the proposed SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:37:12Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
<br />
Insufficient clarity about the actual license text and name. May be reconsidered later.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the proposed SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:31:31Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
<br />
The "or later" concept will be addressed with the proposed SPDX License Exceptions List.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:29:13Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode Terms of Use<br />
| Unicode-TOU<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:22:44Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:21:49Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-10T17:18:44Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently) <br />
Insufficient usage.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-09T19:28:56Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| (see details below) <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses, detailed below. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-09T19:26:08Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-09T19:23:34Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=14% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-SA-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-09T19:18:49Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-NC-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License<br />
| CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-09T19:14:34Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License <br />
| CC-BY-4.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2014-07-09<br />
| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-08T22:06:08Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-08T22:01:35Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License (Caldera) <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-08T22:00:22Z<p>Dmclark: New columns</p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=8% | Short Identifier<br />
| align="left" width=8% | Template Needed<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License (Caldera) <br />
| Caldera<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| No<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| Yes<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
|<br />
| No <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-08T21:55:28Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License Full Name<br />
! align="left" width=10% | Short Identifier<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License (Caldera) <br />
| Caldera<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| Bzip2<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| Zend-2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| (see list) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
|<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-08T21:50:19Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License Full Name<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License (Caldera) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-07-08T21:48:42Z<p>Dmclark: </p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License (Caldera) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-05-01T19:44:07Z<p>Dmclark: /* Licenses Under Consideration */</p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined that the MX4J text is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Caldera License (Caldera) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20 <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
<br />
Because of significant differences in license terms, it was decided to call this license the Caldera License (Caldera) rather than BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera), even though the text is generally structured in a manner similar to the BSD-4-Clause. <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-05-01T19:40:14Z<p>Dmclark: /* Licenses Under Consideration */</p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
<br />
It was determined is the same as the Apache 1.1, which allows for variations in Year, Owner and Contact, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-04-04T22:48:39Z<p>Dmclark: /* Licenses Under Consideration */</p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. <br />
Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
|-<br />
| BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-04-04T22:47:55Z<p>Dmclark: /* Licenses Under Consideration */</p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| MX4J License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review <br />
|2014-04-04<br />
| See http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html <br />
Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. <br />
"The MX4J license is a license that is identified by multiple license scanning tools (including Ninka and FOSSology), but it is not included in the SPDX 1.2 Standard License List. Consider including this license in the 2.0 spec?"<br />
<br />
Per Dennis Clark: "Opinion: A quick glance at the MX4J license text indicates that it is really Apache 1.1, even though the authors have given it the specific name of The MX4J License, Version 1.0. Rather than perpetuate the redundant license name, it might be better for scanning tools to recognize this as Apache 1.1." This request will be reviewed by the SPDX Legal Working Group. <br />
|-<br />
| BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-04-01T18:18:53Z<p>Dmclark: /* Licenses Under Consideration */</p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| BSD 4-clause Caldera License (BSD-4-Clause-Caldera) <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review <br />
|2014-04-01<br />
| See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ <br />
Submitted by Maciej Wereski. <br />
"This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."<br />
<br />
Per Tom Incorvia: "Due primarily to the licensing information stated prior to the slightly modified BSD-4-Clause, I would recommend that this be reviewed by SPDX as a license distinct from the BSD-4-Clause. The platform limitations, in particular, appear to make this a distinct license." <br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclarkhttps://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_ConsiderationLegal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration2014-04-01T18:14:47Z<p>Dmclark: /* Processed License Requests */</p>
<hr />
<div>This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.<br />
<br />
We started tracking license requests in this table after release 1.18 of the License List. Entries submitted prior to that had their Date Submitted arbitrarily set to January 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 align=left valign=top cellpadding=5px style="background: lightyellow; border: 0px solid gray;"<br />
|-<br />
! width=12% align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Status Name !! align=left style="background: lightyellow; border-bottom: 1px solid gray;" | Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top | '''Accepted in v__''' || The license was added to indicated version of the SPDX License List. The SPDX License List version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.<br />
|-<br />
| '''Under Review''' || A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.<br />
|- <br />
| '''Not Accepted''' || The license was reviewed by the Legal Team and it was decided to not add the license to the SPDX License List at this time.<br />
|-<br />
| valign=top |'''On Hold''' || This means that more research is needed or there are other extenuating factors that have prevented a decision on the addition of the license to be made. See the Notes for more information.<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+ <br />
== Licenses Under Consideration ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Bzip2 License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.20<br />
|2014-02-10<br />
| See http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt of Siemens AG. "bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry in the spdx license list would make life easier."<br />
|-<br />
| Zend Engine v2.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| different license for Zend Engine and Zend Framework and variations as such. more research needed. see research done thus far in attachment below<br />
|-<br />
| "old" MIT<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
|2013-01-01<br />
| See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201<br />
|-<br />
| US Gov't works <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler<br />
|-<br />
| GPL-2.0 identifier <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| issue of potential confusion with short identifier "GPL-2.0" meaning GPLv2 only; whereas GPLv2 or later, uses short identifier "GPL-2.0+" should short identifier be changed to "GPL-2.0-only" for symmetry and clarity?<br />
# what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers<br />
# alternatively, could add in Notes field for all GNU licenses that short identifier "GPL-2.0" = GPL v2 only for clarification (but will this be "obvious" enough?<br />
|-<br />
| Unicode <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> On Hold<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| to add? (from FSF list) - Unicode LIcense Agreement for Data Files and Software – are there other versions or other Unicode licenses? It does not appear so, based on the info on this page: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html ... → realized that Fedora has a different Unicode license(for Character Database, Fedora uses short identifier: UCD, found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD ) than the Unicode license above from the FSF list. '''more research needed''' to see if there are others, so can appropriately name, etc.<br />
|-<br />
| Fedora Good List Licenses <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-08-01<br />
| Project to reconcile the "Fedora Good List" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing <br />
with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at <br />
https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 <br />
|-<br />
| Ruby License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Removed as of v1.19<br />
| 2013-09-12<br />
| see discussion here: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-09-12<br />
working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations <br />
|-<br />
| Creative Commons 4.0 License Family <br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-11-27<br />
| Six new licenses. See email from Oliver Fendt. <br />
See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 <br />
and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <br />
|-<br />
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Under Review<br />
| 2013-12-27<br />
| we have version 2.0 on the list, but do not have previous versions. Also question about whether version number should be added to short identifier (i.e., WTFPL-2.0 instead of WTFPL currently)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"<br />
|+<br />
<br />
== Processed License Requests ==<br />
<br />
! align="left" width=12% | License<br />
! width=8% |Status<br />
! width=8% | Date Submitted<br />
! class="unsortable" | Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Microsoft patterns & practices License (MSPPL)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-05<br />
| See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx <br />
Submitted by Oliver Fendt. <br />
"This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"<br />
<br />
The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. <br />
This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. <br />
It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used. <br />
|-<br />
| Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Not Accepted<br />
|2014-03-03<br />
| See http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php <br />
Submitted by Mike Milinkovich of the Eclipse Foundation. "The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors." The license is used in multiple Eclipse projects.<br />
<br />
However, the license text is the same as the SPDX BSD-3-Clause, which allows for variations in Year and Owner, so it is already covered by that license and there is no need to add this one.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| IBM PowerPC Initialization and Boot Software (IBM-pibs)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-30<br />
| http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_pci.c <br />
A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. <br />
Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449 <br />
|-<br />
| Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.2 (SISSL-1.2)<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-7-18<br />
| http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html <br />
" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." <br />
from Camille Moulin camille.moulin@alterway.fr via lists.spdx.org, in the context of a discussion about whether the ID for SISSL (which has no version suffix) should be changed. <br />
Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and <br />
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html<br />
|-|-<br />
| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0<br />
| <span style="display: none;">2</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-6-03<br />
| http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/557<br />
Even though, the ‘Artistic License – 1.0’ and ‘Artistic License – 2.0’ are included in the SPDX License List, I feel a need to also include the ‘‘Artistic License (Perl) – 1.0’.<br />
The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs.<br />
Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06<br />
--> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Unlicense<br />
| <span style="display: none;">3</span> Accepted in v1.19<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal<br />
|-<br />
| FLORA <br />
| <span style="display: none;">4</span> Not Accepted<br />
| 2013-01-01<br />
| decided not to add at this point in time, pending completion of license inclusion guidelines. see http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/month=20121101 for most recent thread on the topic and meeting minutes where discussed at: [[Legal_Team/Minutes/2012-10-31]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Legal]]</div>Dmclark