Difference between revisions of "Legal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration"

Submitted by Maciej Wereski. "This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi)."

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."

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.

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."

See discussion here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768 and access the six variants here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

with the SPDX License List. Review status details are available at https://docs.google.com/a/nexb.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1

working with Ruby project to come up with accurate way to identify different license variations

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.

Zend software is now under the BSD license. See http://framework.zend.com/license The older license text is available via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20130517195954/http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt

License on this page will be added: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html

1. what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers
2. 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?

The "or later" concept is addressed with the SPDX License Exceptions List in v2.0

Submitted by vanek909@gmail.com via bugzilla. "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?"

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.

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.

Submitted by Oliver Fendt. "This license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#"

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

A disjunctive license offering a choice of GPL 2.0 or an IBM open source license. Also see: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166449

" It also seems that there is a 1.2 version of this license (http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html )." 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. Also see: http://spdx.org/licenses/SISSL and http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html

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’. The ‘Artistic License (Perl) - 1.0’ contains an extra clause and is used in a wide range of PERL based programs. Discussed on 6/6 legal call: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Minutes/2013-06-06 --> conferred with OSI and decided to add Artistic-1.0-cl8 and Artistic-1.0-Perl to reflect all contingencies here

Insufficient usage.