Legal Team/License List/Licenses Under Consideration

This table is used to track license list requests and is maintained by the Legal team.

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.

Status Name	Explanation
Accepted vX.yy	The license was added to the SPDX License List for the version indicated. The version indicated may be yet to be released in the case where a license is accepted in between SPDX License List releases.
Under Review	A license addition has been requested and is currently under review.
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.
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.

Licenses Under Consideration

License	Status	Date Submitted	Notes
Zend Engine v2.0	Under Review	2013-01-01	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.
"old" MIT	Under Review	2013-01-01	See http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal/day=20121201
Unlicense	Under Review	2013-01-01	see thread here: http://search.gmane.org/?query=unlicenseamp group=gmane.comp.licenses.spdx.legal
US Gov't works	Under Review	2013-01-01	add short identifier to list; see email from David Wheeler
GPL-2.0 identifier	Under Review	2013-01-01	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? what would the ramifications of changing a short identifier be? had said we wouldn't not change short identifiers 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?
FLORA	On Hold	2013-01-01	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
Unicode	More Research Needed	2013-01-01	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.