Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

Thank you for your help, Sam et al., and for taking the time to respond.
The information and insight you have provided is very valuable to me and
I'm sure will prove useful in shaping the way crypto licenses are
approached. I will take more time to digest this and hope you were able to
enjoy the article from Phil, and some of the potential benefits of a crypto
license beyond what I'd written in my BTC License introductory post
.

Cheers and have a great week ahead.

Josh

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 8:35 PM Sam Ellis  wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
>
>
> > Wanted to quickly share with you all that, with your encouragement, I've
> continued
>
> > pursuing BTC License in hopes of garnering enough adoption to eventually
> make it
>
> > a viable SPDX License List contender.
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to the blog. Whilst gaining adoption certainly
> helps to get onto the SPDX license list, it is not the only consideration.
> The fundamental blocker here is that BTC is substantially identical to ISC
> and therefore from the SPDX point of view they are the same license.
>
>
>
> Since we may have different understanding of the word license it may help
> to consider the issue using different terms: *copyright notice* to mean
> the lines of the form ‘Copyright © ….’, and *legal terms* to mean the
> listing of rights and obligations in order to use the software.
>
>
>
> SPDX exists to help make it easier to comply with the legal terms when
> using open source software. It does so by cataloguing the common sets of
> legal terms found in open source code and ensuring that each unique set of
> legal terms has a unique identifier and name. The common identifier means
> we can communicate easily and concisely amongst each other, knowing that we
> all refer to the same legal terms. Requiring unique legal terms for each
> identifier is an important property, as it helps us to avoid unnecessary
> legal work when reviewing legal terms that are identical. SPDX does not
> consider the copyright notice to be relevant for the purposes of
> identification, because generally the exact names/authors in the copyright
> notice do not affect the rights and obligations that exist to a user of
> that software. Thus, when SPDX uses the term license, it principally means
> the legal terms, and the existence and form of any copyright notices is
> less important.
>
>
>
> From your perspective, it sounds like you consider the uniqueness of a
> license to take into account both the legal terms as well as the specific
> form of the copyright notice. This is a perfectly valid alternative view
> point, but we must realise that this differs from SPDX, and unless somebody
> changes their definition then no progress will be made. SPDX has some good
> reasons for choosing this particular stance, as outlined above, so I think
> it is unlikely a change will come from SPDX 😊
>
>
>
> Return to your idea, allowing users of software to financially compensate
> developers is a worthy goal. However, I am not convinced that introducing a
> newly named license that differs only from ISC by copyright notice is the
> best way to achieve this. The software world already has too many licenses
> and the decision to introduce a new one in my opinion should really only be
> done as a last resort. Every differently named license adds more work for
> users to determine legal compliance (even if only to check that the legal
> terms are the same as terms that have already been reviewed).
>
>
>
>
> What are the alternatives? I think that rather than pitching this as a new
> license, just instead pitch it as a different form of copyright notice. An
> obvious benefit of doing so is that this can be applied to any license, not
> just ISC. Whether the form of copyright notice proposed actually fulfils
> any legal requirements for such notices ought to be considered and is
> something that I cannot advise on. Additional or alternative ways to apply
> the idea are to list such details in the AUTHORS or MAINTAINERS files that
> accompany many projects or on the project website. I think the idea is more
> likely to take off if it can be more broadly applied in different ways.
>
>
>
> Sam.
>
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
> information in any medium. Thank you.
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

RE: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Sam Ellis]

Hi Josh,

> Wanted to quickly share with you all that, with your encouragement, I've 
> continued
> pursuing BTC License in hopes of garnering enough adoption to eventually make 
> it
> a viable SPDX License List contender.

Thank you for the link to the blog. Whilst gaining adoption certainly helps to 
get onto the SPDX license list, it is not the only consideration. The 
fundamental blocker here is that BTC is substantially identical to ISC and 
therefore from the SPDX point of view they are the same license.

Since we may have different understanding of the word license it may help to 
consider the issue using different terms: copyright notice to mean the lines of 
the form ‘Copyright © ….’, and legal terms to mean the listing of rights and 
obligations in order to use the software.

SPDX exists to help make it easier to comply with the legal terms when using 
open source software. It does so by cataloguing the common sets of legal terms 
found in open source code and ensuring that each unique set of legal terms has 
a unique identifier and name. The common identifier means we can communicate 
easily and concisely amongst each other, knowing that we all refer to the same 
legal terms. Requiring unique legal terms for each identifier is an important 
property, as it helps us to avoid unnecessary legal work when reviewing legal 
terms that are identical. SPDX does not consider the copyright notice to be 
relevant for the purposes of identification, because generally the exact 
names/authors in the copyright notice do not affect the rights and obligations 
that exist to a user of that software. Thus, when SPDX uses the term license, 
it principally means the legal terms, and the existence and form of any 
copyright notices is less important.

From your perspective, it sounds like you consider the uniqueness of a license 
to take into account both the legal terms as well as the specific form of the 
copyright notice. This is a perfectly valid alternative view point, but we must 
realise that this differs from SPDX, and unless somebody changes their 
definition then no progress will be made. SPDX has some good reasons for 
choosing this particular stance, as outlined above, so I think it is unlikely a 
change will come from SPDX 😊

Return to your idea, allowing users of software to financially compensate 
developers is a worthy goal. However, I am not convinced that introducing a 
newly named license that differs only from ISC by copyright notice is the best 
way to achieve this. The software world already has too many licenses and the 
decision to introduce a new one in my opinion should really only be done as a 
last resort. Every differently named license adds more work for users to 
determine legal compliance (even if only to check that the legal terms are the 
same as terms that have already been reviewed).

What are the alternatives? I think that rather than pitching this as a new 
license, just instead pitch it as a different form of copyright notice. An 
obvious benefit of doing so is that this can be applied to any license, not 
just ISC. Whether the form of copyright notice proposed actually fulfils any 
legal requirements for such notices ought to be considered and is something 
that I cannot advise on. Additional or alternative ways to apply the idea are 
to list such details in the AUTHORS or MAINTAINERS files that accompany many 
projects or on the project website. I think the idea is more likely to take off 
if it can be more broadly applied in different ways.

Sam.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

Wanted to quickly share with you all that, with your encouragement, I've
continued pursuing BTC License in hopes of garnering enough adoption to
eventually make it a viable SPDX License List contender.

On a related note. Here is a piece you may enjoy, written by Phil Odence
following a conversation we had regarding the license:

Can Blockchain and the BTC License Fund Health Insurance?
http://blog.blackducksoftware.com/can-blockchain-btc-license-fund-health-insurance

I hope you enjoy it. And thanks again for your encouragement. Next stop,
OSI.

Warm regards,
Josh

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:05 PM Josh Habdas  wrote:

> Thanks to all of your for your feedback. It's very helpful for me as I
> begin navigating these new waters. I will find this rooftop and I will
> sing. But I cannot do it alone. And so now I rally. If you can share my
> idea with others, I'm open to speaking with anyone I can about the concept
> and how it might be improved for the benefit of individual FOSS developers
> worldwide.
>
> Warm regards,
> Josh
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:43 PM Brad Edmondson 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> I agree with Philippe here (SPDX looks to use "in the field" as a key
>> factor in adding a license to the list), but I do in fact think your idea
>> of inserting BTC or other crypto addresses in copyright and/or author
>> statements is an interesting one. I hope you won't take this result as
>> discouragement, but rather a win: most SPDX licenses (and not just ISC) are
>> already compatible with your idea! Go forth and be merry, shout it from the
>> rooftops, etc.!
>>
>> I will be interested to see how this goes, as I suspect a non-trivial
>> number of FOSS developers like the idea of credit (somewhat similar to git
>> "blame," yes?) and a simple, low-txn-cost replacement for begware that
>> sometimes accompanies licenses (really, almost frictionless). I wish you
>> luck!
>>
>> Best,
>> Brad Edmondson
>>
>> --
>> Brad Edmondson, *Esq.*
>> 512-673-8782 <(512)%20673-8782> | brad.edmond...@gmail.com
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Josh Habdas  wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for this valuable information, Philippe. I will pursue your
>>> advice. Thank you all for your time.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM Philippe Ombredanne <
>>> pombreda...@nexb.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas 
 wrote:

 > For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX
 License List.
 > I am but I small Fish in a large pond.

 Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards.

 Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received
 adoption first. The purpose of the list is not to bless new licenses
 but to provide a shorthand for common, adopted licenses [1]:

 The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and
 exceptions
 used for open source and other collaborative software.

 The key word here is "commonly" And this is further developed on
 the same page.
 If you want a new license to be "open source"-approved, you should
 contact the OSI instead.

 > The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple
 permissive
 > canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto
 wallet
 > addresses as mentioned in the Hacker Noon article.
 >
 > Ideally we can avoid license proliferation here but I need to have a
 new
 > template accepted for the copyright statement to show the proper way
 to use
 > it. Will that necessitate the creation of a unique new license text,
 or can
 > this be done creatively without causing a new license in terms?

 A copyright statement is a copyright statement , a license text is a
 license text.
 As much as you would like these two to be conflated in one, this is
 not the way things work as stated by posts in this thread.

 I think you have received a lot of valuable feedback and push back
 here on your idea.

 So go ahead and submit your new license idea at the OSI if you feel
 like it, though I consider this a terribly bad idea to submit a new
 text and this will unlikely help your new license to receive any
 adoption. Since there is really nothing novel, and you are eventually
 considering creating a new license text just for the purpose of having
 something different I doubt this would receive much consideration
 there too.

 You want to define a new way to use copyright statements creatively.
 So promote this but mixing this up with license texts and asking for a
 unique identifier does not make sense to me and to most on this list.
 There is not much more to say.

 [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview
 --
 Cordially
 Philippe Ombredanne

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Spdx-legal mailing list
>>> Spdx-le

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

Thanks to all of your for your feedback. It's very helpful for me as I
begin navigating these new waters. I will find this rooftop and I will
sing. But I cannot do it alone. And so now I rally. If you can share my
idea with others, I'm open to speaking with anyone I can about the concept
and how it might be improved for the benefit of individual FOSS developers
worldwide.

Warm regards,
Josh

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:43 PM Brad Edmondson 
wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> I agree with Philippe here (SPDX looks to use "in the field" as a key
> factor in adding a license to the list), but I do in fact think your idea
> of inserting BTC or other crypto addresses in copyright and/or author
> statements is an interesting one. I hope you won't take this result as
> discouragement, but rather a win: most SPDX licenses (and not just ISC) are
> already compatible with your idea! Go forth and be merry, shout it from the
> rooftops, etc.!
>
> I will be interested to see how this goes, as I suspect a non-trivial
> number of FOSS developers like the idea of credit (somewhat similar to git
> "blame," yes?) and a simple, low-txn-cost replacement for begware that
> sometimes accompanies licenses (really, almost frictionless). I wish you
> luck!
>
> Best,
> Brad Edmondson
>
> --
> Brad Edmondson, *Esq.*
> 512-673-8782 <(512)%20673-8782> | brad.edmond...@gmail.com
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Josh Habdas  wrote:
>
>> Thank you for this valuable information, Philippe. I will pursue your
>> advice. Thank you all for your time.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM Philippe Ombredanne 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas  wrote:
>>>
>>> > For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX License
>>> List.
>>> > I am but I small Fish in a large pond.
>>>
>>> Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards.
>>>
>>> Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received
>>> adoption first. The purpose of the list is not to bless new licenses
>>> but to provide a shorthand for common, adopted licenses [1]:
>>>
>>> The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and
>>> exceptions
>>> used for open source and other collaborative software.
>>>
>>> The key word here is "commonly" And this is further developed on
>>> the same page.
>>> If you want a new license to be "open source"-approved, you should
>>> contact the OSI instead.
>>>
>>> > The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple
>>> permissive
>>> > canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto
>>> wallet
>>> > addresses as mentioned in the Hacker Noon article.
>>> >
>>> > Ideally we can avoid license proliferation here but I need to have a
>>> new
>>> > template accepted for the copyright statement to show the proper way
>>> to use
>>> > it. Will that necessitate the creation of a unique new license text,
>>> or can
>>> > this be done creatively without causing a new license in terms?
>>>
>>> A copyright statement is a copyright statement , a license text is a
>>> license text.
>>> As much as you would like these two to be conflated in one, this is
>>> not the way things work as stated by posts in this thread.
>>>
>>> I think you have received a lot of valuable feedback and push back
>>> here on your idea.
>>>
>>> So go ahead and submit your new license idea at the OSI if you feel
>>> like it, though I consider this a terribly bad idea to submit a new
>>> text and this will unlikely help your new license to receive any
>>> adoption. Since there is really nothing novel, and you are eventually
>>> considering creating a new license text just for the purpose of having
>>> something different I doubt this would receive much consideration
>>> there too.
>>>
>>> You want to define a new way to use copyright statements creatively.
>>> So promote this but mixing this up with license texts and asking for a
>>> unique identifier does not make sense to me and to most on this list.
>>> There is not much more to say.
>>>
>>> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview
>>> --
>>> Cordially
>>> Philippe Ombredanne
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Spdx-legal mailing list
>> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>>
>>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Brad Edmondson]

Hi Josh,

I agree with Philippe here (SPDX looks to use "in the field" as a key
factor in adding a license to the list), but I do in fact think your idea
of inserting BTC or other crypto addresses in copyright and/or author
statements is an interesting one. I hope you won't take this result as
discouragement, but rather a win: most SPDX licenses (and not just ISC) are
already compatible with your idea! Go forth and be merry, shout it from the
rooftops, etc.!

I will be interested to see how this goes, as I suspect a non-trivial
number of FOSS developers like the idea of credit (somewhat similar to git
"blame," yes?) and a simple, low-txn-cost replacement for begware that
sometimes accompanies licenses (really, almost frictionless). I wish you
luck!

Best,
Brad Edmondson

--
Brad Edmondson, *Esq.*
512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Josh Habdas  wrote:

> Thank you for this valuable information, Philippe. I will pursue your
> advice. Thank you all for your time.
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM Philippe Ombredanne 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas  wrote:
>>
>> > For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX License
>> List.
>> > I am but I small Fish in a large pond.
>>
>> Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards.
>>
>> Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received
>> adoption first. The purpose of the list is not to bless new licenses
>> but to provide a shorthand for common, adopted licenses [1]:
>>
>> The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and
>> exceptions
>> used for open source and other collaborative software.
>>
>> The key word here is "commonly" And this is further developed on
>> the same page.
>> If you want a new license to be "open source"-approved, you should
>> contact the OSI instead.
>>
>> > The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple
>> permissive
>> > canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto
>> wallet
>> > addresses as mentioned in the Hacker Noon article.
>> >
>> > Ideally we can avoid license proliferation here but I need to have a new
>> > template accepted for the copyright statement to show the proper way to
>> use
>> > it. Will that necessitate the creation of a unique new license text, or
>> can
>> > this be done creatively without causing a new license in terms?
>>
>> A copyright statement is a copyright statement , a license text is a
>> license text.
>> As much as you would like these two to be conflated in one, this is
>> not the way things work as stated by posts in this thread.
>>
>> I think you have received a lot of valuable feedback and push back
>> here on your idea.
>>
>> So go ahead and submit your new license idea at the OSI if you feel
>> like it, though I consider this a terribly bad idea to submit a new
>> text and this will unlikely help your new license to receive any
>> adoption. Since there is really nothing novel, and you are eventually
>> considering creating a new license text just for the purpose of having
>> something different I doubt this would receive much consideration
>> there too.
>>
>> You want to define a new way to use copyright statements creatively.
>> So promote this but mixing this up with license texts and asking for a
>> unique identifier does not make sense to me and to most on this list.
>> There is not much more to say.
>>
>> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview
>> --
>> Cordially
>> Philippe Ombredanne
>>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

Thank you for this valuable information, Philippe. I will pursue your
advice. Thank you all for your time.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM Philippe Ombredanne 
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas  wrote:
>
> > For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX License
> List.
> > I am but I small Fish in a large pond.
>
> Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards.
>
> Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received
> adoption first. The purpose of the list is not to bless new licenses
> but to provide a shorthand for common, adopted licenses [1]:
>
> The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and
> exceptions
> used for open source and other collaborative software.
>
> The key word here is "commonly" And this is further developed on
> the same page.
> If you want a new license to be "open source"-approved, you should
> contact the OSI instead.
>
> > The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple permissive
> > canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto wallet
> > addresses as mentioned in the Hacker Noon article.
> >
> > Ideally we can avoid license proliferation here but I need to have a new
> > template accepted for the copyright statement to show the proper way to
> use
> > it. Will that necessitate the creation of a unique new license text, or
> can
> > this be done creatively without causing a new license in terms?
>
> A copyright statement is a copyright statement , a license text is a
> license text.
> As much as you would like these two to be conflated in one, this is
> not the way things work as stated by posts in this thread.
>
> I think you have received a lot of valuable feedback and push back
> here on your idea.
>
> So go ahead and submit your new license idea at the OSI if you feel
> like it, though I consider this a terribly bad idea to submit a new
> text and this will unlikely help your new license to receive any
> adoption. Since there is really nothing novel, and you are eventually
> considering creating a new license text just for the purpose of having
> something different I doubt this would receive much consideration
> there too.
>
> You want to define a new way to use copyright statements creatively.
> So promote this but mixing this up with license texts and asking for a
> unique identifier does not make sense to me and to most on this list.
> There is not much more to say.
>
> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview
> --
> Cordially
> Philippe Ombredanne
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas  wrote:

> For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX License List.
> I am but I small Fish in a large pond.

Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards.

Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received
adoption first. The purpose of the list is not to bless new licenses
but to provide a shorthand for common, adopted licenses [1]:

The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and exceptions
used for open source and other collaborative software.

The key word here is "commonly" And this is further developed on
the same page.
If you want a new license to be "open source"-approved, you should
contact the OSI instead.

> The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple permissive
> canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto wallet
> addresses as mentioned in the Hacker Noon article.
>
> Ideally we can avoid license proliferation here but I need to have a new
> template accepted for the copyright statement to show the proper way to use
> it. Will that necessitate the creation of a unique new license text, or can
> this be done creatively without causing a new license in terms?

A copyright statement is a copyright statement , a license text is a
license text.
As much as you would like these two to be conflated in one, this is
not the way things work as stated by posts in this thread.

I think you have received a lot of valuable feedback and push back
here on your idea.

So go ahead and submit your new license idea at the OSI if you feel
like it, though I consider this a terribly bad idea to submit a new
text and this will unlikely help your new license to receive any
adoption. Since there is really nothing novel, and you are eventually
considering creating a new license text just for the purpose of having
something different I doubt this would receive much consideration
there too.

You want to define a new way to use copyright statements creatively.
So promote this but mixing this up with license texts and asking for a
unique identifier does not make sense to me and to most on this list.
There is not much more to say.

[1] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

r example: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or
>>> "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this
>>> guideline.")
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> From: "Josh Habdas" 
>>> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM
>>> Subject: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)
>>>
>>> For consideration during the next SPDX Legal Team meeting.
>>>
>>> Full name: BTC License
>>> Identifier: BTC
>>> URL: https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5c04083f01
>>> OSI: Not OSI-submitted nor approved
>>> Explanation: Verbatim copy of ISC, with updated copyright line intended
>>> to protect individual privacy and facilitate transmission of funds to
>>> creators of open source work. Example use within software provided below.
>>>
>>> Example LICENSE text file .
>>> Example license header .
>>> Example abbreviated license header .
>>>
>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Josh Habdas
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Spdx-legal mailing list
>>> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>>>
>> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[J Lovejoy]

Hi Josh,

As this is the exact same license text as ISC, save for the copyright line 
which is not counted as for purposes of matching license texts as per the SPDX 
License List Matching Guidelines, there is no need to add this to the SPDX 
License List, as the license would be identified as or matched to ISC. Thus, if 
one wanted to use an SPDX short identifier to refer to this license, they would 
use the short identifier ISC license (which is “ISC”). The copyright line can 
be different, the license is still the same.  

I’m not sure if you are familiar with the larger SPDX project, but the SPDX 
specification serves the goal to create a standard way to identify the license, 
copyright, provenance, and other such information in a software ‘bill of 
materials’. This effort was born out of the reality that companies along the 
supply chain ask for and exchange this information and by having a standard way 
to report this data, redundant work can be reduced.  When the SPDX 
specification first was getting started, we recognized the need for a reliable 
and concise way to refer to common licenses in an SPDX document (instead of 
having to repeat the license over and over). This, in turn would also help 
prevent those people processing such information from having to read the same 
license over and over.  And so, the SPDX License List was born. 

Of course, there is a need for a reliable and concise way to refer to common 
licenses in many other instances besides an SPDX document and so the SPDX 
License List has seen adoption in a host of other ways.  Notably, developers 
are using the short identifiers as a concise, reliable, and machine-readable 
way to identify the license on a per-file basis (for example: 
https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/lib/aarch32/cache_helpers.S
 
<https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/lib/aarch32/cache_helpers.S>
 ).  This ensures the license goes with the file (even if the license file 
doesn’t follow the rest of the code files) which is immensely helpful for 
licensers and downstream recipients. Whether you use the standard license 
header as is recommended by the license (if there is one) or the SPDX 
identifier or the entire license text for shorter licenses - identifying the 
license in every file is recommended practice by the FSF*, Apache Foundation, 
Eclipse Foundation, etc. Anyway, I mention this because your articles cites the 
distraction of long license headers as well as your unfortunate experience of 
someone copying your code without retaining your copyright notice and the 
license (I’m sorry to hear about this and yes, I think you should say something 
to this person - a gentle reminder may often be enough to correct the error!). 

I’m not sure what else to tell you here. I don’t think any license really 
prevents you from replacing your name in the copyright notice with a bitcoin 
address.  I’m also not sure this change, which is not a change to the license, 
will make FOSS licensing sexy, but then again, nothing may achieve that goal! ;)

Finally and on a slightly separate note - your assertion that there are some 
"20 odd licenses now awaiting review” by the SPDX Legal team is incorrect.


Thanks,
Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensou...@jilayne.com


> On Jul 5, 2017, at 7:04 PM, Josh Habdas  wrote:
> 
> I can change something insignificant if it helps, but this seemed better
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:03 AM Josh Habdas  <mailto:jhab...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It's the exact same, in fact. Save for the copyright line. And here's why 
> this new license is important:
> 
> https://medium.com/@jhabdas/introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11?source=linkShare-d4a43ea991d3-1499277791
>  
> <https://medium.com/@jhabdas/introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11?source=linkShare-d4a43ea991d3-1499277791>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:57 AM Richard Fontana  <mailto:rfont...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> This seems to be equivalent to the ISC license from an SPDX point of view 
> (see https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines 
> <https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines>:
> " Ignore copyright notices. A copyright notice consists of the following 
> elements, for example: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or 
> "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this 
> guideline.")
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Josh Habdas" mailto:jhab...@gmail.com>>
> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org <mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM
> Subject: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)
> 
> For consideration during the next SPDX Legal Team meeting. 
> 
> Full name: BTC License 
> Identifier: BTC 
> URL: https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Brad Edmondson]

Hi Josh,

I think the point here is that you can adopt your proposal of using using a
BTC wallet address in the copyright-holder field without declaring a new
license at all. Since the intent is to use the exact same terms as the ISC,
why not just propose using wallet addresses in copyright or author fields
of licenses already on the license list? It seems to me like you can just
declare victory (compatibility) and run with it, yes?

Best,
Brad Edmondson

--
Brad Edmondson, *Esq.*
512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Josh Habdas  wrote:

> FYI - BTC just hit Hacker Noon. https://hackernoon.com/
> introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:04 PM Josh Habdas  wrote:
>
>> My remaining question to Richard as to how many words I should change to
>> make it a unique license, which it already is.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM Jonas Smedegaard  wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting Josh Habdas (2017-07-11 04:47:30)
>>> > Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is
>>> > this request being tracked for discussion?
>>>
>>> You got a response from Richard Fontana, and you confirmed that this is
>>> not a new license, only a new copyright holder.
>>>
>>> What is left to track or discuss further?
>>>
>>>
>>>  - Jonas
>>>
>>> --
>>>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>>>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136 <+45%2040%2084%2031%2036>  Website:
>>> http://dr.jones.dk/
>>>
>>>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>>>
>>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

FYI - BTC just hit Hacker Noon.
https://hackernoon.com/introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:04 PM Josh Habdas  wrote:

> My remaining question to Richard as to how many words I should change to
> make it a unique license, which it already is.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM Jonas Smedegaard  wrote:
>
>> Quoting Josh Habdas (2017-07-11 04:47:30)
>> > Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is
>> > this request being tracked for discussion?
>>
>> You got a response from Richard Fontana, and you confirmed that this is
>> not a new license, only a new copyright holder.
>>
>> What is left to track or discuss further?
>>
>>
>>  - Jonas
>>
>> --
>>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136 <+45%2040%2084%2031%2036>  Website:
>> http://dr.jones.dk/
>>
>>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Josh Habdas (2017-07-11 04:47:30)
> Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is 
> this request being tracked for discussion?

You got a response from Richard Fontana, and you confirmed that this is 
not a new license, only a new copyright holder.

What is left to track or discuss further?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

My remaining question to Richard as to how many words I should change to
make it a unique license, which it already is.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM Jonas Smedegaard  wrote:

> Quoting Josh Habdas (2017-07-11 04:47:30)
> > Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is
> > this request being tracked for discussion?
>
> You got a response from Richard Fontana, and you confirmed that this is
> not a new license, only a new copyright holder.
>
> What is left to track or discuss further?
>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136 <+45%2040%2084%2031%2036>  Website:
> http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

Haven't heard back and joined the list. Sorry for the noise but is this
request being tracked for discussion?

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:04 AM Josh Habdas  wrote:

> I can change something insignificant if it helps, but this seemed better
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:03 AM Josh Habdas  wrote:
>
>> It's the exact same, in fact. Save for the copyright line. And here's why
>> this new license is important:
>>
>>
>> https://medium.com/@jhabdas/introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11?source=linkShare-d4a43ea991d3-1499277791
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:57 AM Richard Fontana 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This seems to be equivalent to the ISC license from an SPDX point of
>>> view (see https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines:
>>> " Ignore copyright notices. A copyright notice consists of the following
>>> elements, for example: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or
>>> "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this
>>> guideline.")
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------
>>>
>>> From: "Josh Habdas" 
>>> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM
>>> Subject: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)
>>>
>>> For consideration during the next SPDX Legal Team meeting.
>>>
>>> Full name: BTC License
>>> Identifier: BTC
>>> URL: https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5c04083f01
>>> OSI: Not OSI-submitted nor approved
>>> Explanation: Verbatim copy of ISC, with updated copyright line intended
>>> to protect individual privacy and facilitate transmission of funds to
>>> creators of open source work. Example use within software provided below.
>>>
>>> Example LICENSE text file .
>>> Example license header .
>>> Example abbreviated license header .
>>>
>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Josh Habdas
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Spdx-legal mailing list
>>> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>>>
>>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

I can change something insignificant if it helps, but this seemed better
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:03 AM Josh Habdas  wrote:

> It's the exact same, in fact. Save for the copyright line. And here's why
> this new license is important:
>
>
> https://medium.com/@jhabdas/introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11?source=linkShare-d4a43ea991d3-1499277791
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:57 AM Richard Fontana 
> wrote:
>
>> This seems to be equivalent to the ISC license from an SPDX point of view
>> (see https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines:
>> " Ignore copyright notices. A copyright notice consists of the following
>> elements, for example: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or
>> "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this
>> guideline.")
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> From: "Josh Habdas" 
>> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM
>> Subject: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)
>>
>> For consideration during the next SPDX Legal Team meeting.
>>
>> Full name: BTC License
>> Identifier: BTC
>> URL: https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5c04083f01
>> OSI: Not OSI-submitted nor approved
>> Explanation: Verbatim copy of ISC, with updated copyright line intended
>> to protect individual privacy and facilitate transmission of funds to
>> creators of open source work. Example use within software provided below.
>>
>> Example LICENSE text file .
>> Example license header .
>> Example abbreviated license header .
>>
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Josh Habdas
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Spdx-legal mailing list
>> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>>
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

It's the exact same, in fact. Save for the copyright line. And here's why
this new license is important:

https://medium.com/@jhabdas/introducing-the-btc-license-28650887eb11?source=linkShare-d4a43ea991d3-1499277791
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:57 AM Richard Fontana  wrote:

> This seems to be equivalent to the ISC license from an SPDX point of view
> (see https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines:
> " Ignore copyright notices. A copyright notice consists of the following
> elements, for example: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or
> "(c) 2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this
> guideline.")
>
>
> --
>
> From: "Josh Habdas" 
> To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM
> Subject: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)
>
> For consideration during the next SPDX Legal Team meeting.
>
> Full name: BTC License
> Identifier: BTC
> URL: https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5c04083f01
> OSI: Not OSI-submitted nor approved
> Explanation: Verbatim copy of ISC, with updated copyright line intended to
> protect individual privacy and facilitate transmission of funds to creators
> of open source work. Example use within software provided below.
>
> Example LICENSE text file .
> Example license header .
> Example abbreviated license header .
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Regards,
> Josh Habdas
>
>
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
>
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Richard Fontana]

This seems to be equivalent to the ISC license from an SPDX point of view (see 
https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines: 
" Ignore copyright notices. A copyright notice consists of the following 
elements, for example: "2012 Copyright, John Doe. All rights reserved." or "(c) 
2012 John Doe." Templates may or may not include markup for this guideline.") 


- Original Message -

From: "Josh Habdas"  
To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org 
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:52:38 AM 
Subject: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC) 

For consideration during the next SPDX Legal Team meeting. 

Full name: BTC License 
Identifier: BTC 
URL: https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5c04083f01 
OSI: Not OSI-submitted nor approved 
Explanation: Verbatim copy of ISC, with updated copyright line intended to 
protect individual privacy and facilitate transmission of funds to creators of 
open source work. Example use within software provided below. 

Example LICENSE text file . 
Example license header . 
Example abbreviated license header . 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Regards, 
Josh Habdas 


___ 
Spdx-legal mailing list 
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org 
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal 
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

[Josh Habdas]

For consideration during the next SPDX Legal Team meeting.

*Full name:* BTC License
*Identifier:* BTC
*URL:* https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5c04083f01

*OSI:* Not OSI-submitted nor approved
*Explanation: *Verbatim copy of ISC, with updated copyright line intended
to protect individual privacy and facilitate transmission of funds to
creators of open source work. Example use within software provided below.

Example LICENSE text file
.
Example license header
.
Example abbreviated license header
.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Josh Habdas


LICENSE
Description: Binary data
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal