Hi,
Does someone have a large database of software licenses and/or patent
notices? I already have SPDX, but I'm interested in a larger
compendium. I'd ideally like to consume these from an authoritative
source in git, similar to spdx, but I will make my own repo and
publish it if I can't find
On 4/5/21 10:54 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
So, to be clear, what happened is that the heading "Zero-Clause BSD"
apparently got changed to "Zero-Clause BSD / Free Public License
1.0.0". It's not clear when this happened. I left the OSI board at the
end of March 2019 (and also ceased having access
On 4/6/21 2:25 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> You get the idea.
> I don’t see the harm in saying something like "this license was submitted and
> approved as the Free Public License 1.0.0 but is more now commonly referred
> to as 0BSD and is now referred to on this list (and SPDX) as 0BSD, but may
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nigel T
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 1:52 PM
> To: License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Cc: mc...@lexpan.law
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Please rename "Free Public
> License-1.0.0" to 0BSD... again.
>
> There would then be no
It’s a 30 second change to modify the license title back to what it was as
requested and to add a note in the text that the FPL name was the original
submission name but the original submitter agreed to the renaming and it is no
longer used.
Unless you think Rob is actually lying and there
On 4/6/21 6:36 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> My point is that it was submitted to OSI (starting here:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2
> 015-August/002438.html ending here:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2
>
>> I'd still weakly support the OSI retaining the first sentence in the
>> note that says "Despite its name, Zero-Clause BSD is an alteration of
>> the ISC license, and is not textually derived from licenses in the BSD
>> family". I guess I'm seeing it as equivalent to calling MIT No
>>
>
> On Apr 6, 2021, at 9:37 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> My point is that it was submitted to OSI (starting here:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2SI
> 015-August/002438.html ending here:
>
My point is that it was submitted to OSI (starting here:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2
015-August/002438.html ending here:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2
015-November/002617.html ) under the Free Public
On 4/5/21 10:23 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> Isn't the problem here that this license was submitted initially for
> approval under "Free Public License-1.0.0"
Not "initially", no. I initially submitted it for approval to SPDX after it had
been merged into Android M, and both occured before OSI ever
On 4/5/21 9:54 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 9:22 AM Rob Landley wrote:
>> Could someone please point me to where in the archives this issue was raised
>> again and voted on again to change the name back without notifying me the
>> issue
>> was once again in dispute?
>
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
