Re: [new license request] The Open Group License

[Steve Winslow]

Hi Felicitas, thanks very much for your email. I've created an issue for
your message in the repo at
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1026. Feel free to follow
along and weigh in there as it is reviewed by the SPDX legal team
participants.

Best,
Steve

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:31 AM Felicitas Jung 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> while adding identifiers to licenses used in the BSP (note: i am a
> legal trainee, so wording may not be technical perfect), i stumbled
> upon the The Open Group License, which does not have an identifier yet.
> It is used in: xorg-app-iceauth, xorg-app-rgb, xorg-app-xauth, xorg-
> app-xdm, xorg-app-xinit, xorg-app-xprop, xorg-app-xrdb, xorg-app-xset,
> xorg-app-xsetroot, xorg-app-xvinfo (and maybe some more).
> The wording is consistent the following (copyright holder is always The
> Open Group):
>
> COPYING
> ---
> Copyright  
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and
> its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
> provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
> both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
> supporting documentation.
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
> in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
> OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL  BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES
> OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR
> OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR
> THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
>
> Except as contained in this notice, the name of 
> shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use
> or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
> from .
> ---
>
> The first paragraph is different from X11-License, therefore i do not
> want to use the X11-identifier:
> > Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute,
> as in curl; no "including without limitation" like X11
> > and sell this software and its documentation
> software and documentation are not together defined as "the software"
> and therefore more divided than in X11-License
> > for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided
> > that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both
> > that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
> > documentation.
> X11 does not require appearance in documentation, but in substantial
> parts of software.
>
> I am hoping that you can add the License to the license list so it may
> gain an identifier.
> Thank you!
>
> Felicitas Jung
>
>
> 
>
>

-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2807): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2807
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/74157151/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[new license request] The Open Group License

[Felicitas Jung]

Hi,

while adding identifiers to licenses used in the BSP (note: i am a
legal trainee, so wording may not be technical perfect), i stumbled
upon the The Open Group License, which does not have an identifier yet.
It is used in: xorg-app-iceauth, xorg-app-rgb, xorg-app-xauth, xorg-
app-xdm, xorg-app-xinit, xorg-app-xprop, xorg-app-xrdb, xorg-app-xset,
xorg-app-xsetroot, xorg-app-xvinfo (and maybe some more).
The wording is consistent the following (copyright holder is always The
Open Group):

COPYING
---
Copyright  

Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and
its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation.

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL  BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES
OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR
OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR
THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Except as contained in this notice, the name of 
shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use
or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
from .
---

The first paragraph is different from X11-License, therefore i do not
want to use the X11-identifier:
> Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute,
as in curl; no "including without limitation" like X11
> and sell this software and its documentation
software and documentation are not together defined as "the software"
and therefore more divided than in X11-License
> for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided
> that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both
> that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
> documentation.
X11 does not require appearance in documentation, but in substantial
parts of software.

I am hoping that you can add the License to the license list so it may
gain an identifier.
Thank you!

Felicitas Jung


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2806): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2806
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/74157151/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: New License Request: Valgrind Client License

[Steve Winslow]

Hi Stefan, thanks for reaching out. It looks to me like this one is
equivalent (for SPDX matching purposes) to bzip2-1.0.6 which is currently
on the license list [1]. So I don't expect that this would lead to a new
entry on the list, unless there are substantive differences under the SPDX
matching guidelines [2].

As a heads-up, new license requests are probably best submitted through the
GitHub issues list [3], as that is the primary place where participants
review the requests and prepare additions to the list.

Best,
Steve

[1] https://spdx.org/licenses/bzip2-1.0.6.html
[2] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines
[3] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:31 PM Stefan Brüns 
wrote:

> Valgrind (http://valgrind.org) is mostly licensed under GPL-2.0-or later,
> but
> includes several permissively licensed header files for inclusion in
> arbitrary
> client programs.
>
> Proposed Full Name: Valgrind BSD-Style Client Header License
> Short Identifier: Valgrind-BSD-Client-Header
>
> The license is included in the following files:
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=valgrind.git;a=blob;f=include/valgrind.h
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=valgrind.git;a=blob;f=callgrind/callgrind.h
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=valgrind.git;a=blob;f=drd/drd.h
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=valgrind.git;a=blob;f=hellgrind/hellgrind.h
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=valgrind.git;a=blob;f=memcheck/memcheck.h
>
> The actual license clauses are identical for all 5 files.
>
> Full Text (valgrind.h):
>
>
>Notice that the following BSD-style license applies to this one
>file (valgrind.h) only.  The rest of Valgrind is licensed under the
>terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2, unless
>otherwise indicated.  See the COPYING file in the source
>distribution for details.
>
>
>
>This file is part of Valgrind, a dynamic binary instrumentation
>framework.
>
>Copyright (C) 2000-2017 Julian Seward.  All rights reserved.
>
>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>are met:
>
>1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
>2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must
>   not claim that you wrote the original software.  If you use this
>   software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product
>   documentation would be appreciated but is not required.
>
>3. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
>   not be misrepresented as being the original software.
>
>4. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote
>   products derived from this software without specific prior written
>   permission.
>
>THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS
>OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
>WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
>ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
>DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
>GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
>INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
>WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
>NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
>SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Brüns  /  Bergstraße 21  /  52062 Aachen
> home: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019
>
> 
>
>

-- 
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swins...@linuxfoundation.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2685): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2685
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/35237515/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

New License Request: CERN Open Hardware License v1.2

[J. Simmons]

   1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception.
   CERN Open Hardware License v1.2
   2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier.
   CERN-OHL-1.2
   3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text,
   either from the author or a community recognized source.
   https://www.ohwr.org/attachments/2388/cern_ohl_v_1_2.txt
   4. Create and attach a text file with the license or exception text from
   the url provided in #3. Please proofread the text file to ensure that:
   see attached
   5. Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved (see:
   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) or whether it has been
   submitted for approval to the OSI and is currently under review.
   Not OSI approved as it is an OSHW license.  But, it is listed on the
   OSHWA FAQ (https://www.oshwa.org/faq/) and it one of the more widely
   used OSHW licenses.
   6. Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license or
   exception to be included on the SPDX License List, including identifying at
   least one program that uses this license.
   Using one of the more widely known and recognized OSHW licenses as an
   example license as part of
   https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/719.  Supporting OSHW
   licenses would enable OSHW developers to document the complete licensing
   regime of their project (hardware, software, documentation) under a single
   mechanism.


-- 
J. Simmons, PhD
President
Mach 30: Foundation for Space Development
http://mach30.org
  


*~ ad astra per civitatem ~*to the stars through community

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2436): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2436
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/27813077/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

CERN Open Hardware Licence v1.2 

Preamble

Through this CERN Open Hardware Licence ("CERN OHL") version 1.2, CERN
wishes to provide a tool to foster collaboration and sharing among
hardware designers.  The CERN OHL is copyright CERN. Anyone is welcome
to use the CERN OHL, in unmodified form only, for the distribution of
their own Open Hardware designs. Any other right is reserved. Release
of hardware designs under the CERN OHL does not constitute an
endorsement of the licensor or its designs nor does it imply any
involvement by CERN in the development of such designs.

1. Definitions

In this Licence, the following terms have the following meanings:
 
“Licence” means this CERN OHL.

“Documentation” means schematic diagrams, designs, circuit or circuit
board layouts, mechanical drawings, flow charts and descriptive text,
and other explanatory material that is explicitly stated as being made
available under the conditions of this Licence. The Documentation may
be in any medium, including but not limited to computer files and
representations on paper, film, or any other media.

“Documentation Location” means a location where the Licensor has
placed Documentation, and which he believes will be publicly
accessible for at least three years from the first communication to
the public or distribution of Documentation.

“Product” means either an entire, or any part of a, device built using
the Documentation or the modified Documentation.

“Licensee” means any natural or legal person exercising rights under
this Licence.

“Licensor” means any natural or legal person that creates or modifies
Documentation and subsequently communicates to the public and/ or
distributes the resulting Documentation under the terms and conditions
of this Licence.

A Licensee may at the same time be a Licensor, and vice versa. 

Use of the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter genders
and is employed solely to facilitate reading.

2. Applicability

2.1. This Licence governs the use, copying, modification,
communication to the public and distribution of the Documentation, and
the manufacture and distribution of Products. By exercising any right
granted under this Licence, the Licensee irrevocably accepts these
terms and conditions.

2.2. This Licence is granted by the Licensor directly to the Licensee,
and shall apply worldwide and without limitation in time. The Licensee
may assign his licence rights or grant sub-licences.

2.3. This Licence does not extend to software, firmware, or code
loaded into programmable devices which may be used in conjunction with
the Documentation, the modified Documentation or with Products, unless
such software, firmware, or code is explicitly expressed to be subject
to this Licence. The use of such software, firmware, or code is
otherwise subject to the applicable licence terms and conditions.

3. Copying, modification, communication to the 

Re: New License Request: +CAL Software License

[Brad Edmondson]

Thanks Sally, really interesting. I've created an issue here[1] where the
SPDX legal team will assess the license, but in order to best make that
assessment, we have a few questions in the meantime:

1. Can you point us to some examples of projects or works that are using
this license? We try to represent open-source software as it is actually
used "in the wild," so usage in a project is a requirement for being added
to the SPDX License List.

2. Would it be possible for CAL to add a version number to this license?
There may come a time where you wish to revise it and release an updated
license text, and that is a lot more straightforward if you are going from
CAL-1.0 to CAL-1.1 or CAL-2.0. We look to the license author to specify
their versioning and to be transparent when changes are made to the text by
bumping the version number.

3. Do you have any objection to our labeling and titling the license CAL
instead of +CAL? The + character has a special meaning in SPDX license
expressions, and is not allowed in SPDX IDs.

4. Please let us know what OSI says after its review.


Thank you for your submission, and please check or follow the Github issue
for progress on this license request.


Best,

Brad Edmondson
SPDX Legal Team Volunteer


[1] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/670


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


On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:10 PM Sally Mindrebo <
sally.mindr...@corpaccountabilitylab.org> wrote:

> 1) License Name: +CAL Software License
>
> 2) Short Identifier: +CAL
>
> 3) URL: https://legaldesign.org/cal-software-license
>
> 4) OSI Approval: Submitted and under review
>
> 5) Why the +CAL License?: There are no existing licenses that (1) expand a
> common law duty of care across the supply chains in which the copyrighted
> work is used and (2) provide victims of abuse by corporations with
> third-party beneficiary standing to enforce the copyright license. These
> two features are unique to the CAL license, which otherwise operates with
> the same legal logic as the GNU General Public License. Accordingly, this
> is a new special purpose license intended for users who would like to
> create copyrighted works that repair distorted and unjust market
> structures, in line with the ethics and values of certain copyright
> creators.
>
>
> --
> *Sally Mindrebo*
> *Lead Communications Designer, Corporate Accountability Lab
> *
> 317.501.0544 *| *205 W. Monroe St. Chicago, IL
> 
>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#2338): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2338
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/23290149/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: New License Request: TU-Berlin

[Brad Edmondson]

Hi ARW,

Thank you for these license requests. They have been approved here
 and will be added to
the next release of the SPDX License List.

Best,
Brad

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

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Brad Edmondson 
wrote:

> Thanks ARW and Dennis,
>
> Issue for this opened (and you can track progress) here:
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/636
>
> The legal team will assess and decide on these licenses there. We have
> just finalized the new licenses for the 3.1 release of the list, so this
> will likely need to wait until the release after that.
>
> Thank you,
> Brad Edmondson
>
>
>
> --
> Brad Edmondson, *Esq.*
> 512-673-8782 | brad.edmond...@gmail.com
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Dennis Clark  wrote:
>
>> Hi Legal Team,
>>
>> For the record, the proposed license is currently recognized by ScanCode
>> as tu-berlin.
>>
>> https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/4e63a6775a895f
>> dec5a3a53f96013399fa34b1b7/src/licensedcode/data/licenses/tu-berlin.yml
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dennis Clark
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:09 PM, A. Wilcox 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Proposed Full Name:
>>>
>>> Technische Universitaet Berlin License
>>>
>>> Permissive Technische Universitaet Berlin License [???]
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposed Short Identifier:
>>>
>>> TU-Berlin-1.0
>>>
>>> TU-Berlin-2.0
>>>
>>>
>>> URL references:
>>>
>>> 1.0:
>>>
>>> http://alpha.tmit.bme.hu/pub/audio/gsm-1.0/copyrigh
>>> https://github.com/swh/ladspa/blob/master/gsm/COPYRIGHT
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.0:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/CorsixTH/deps/blob/master/licences/libgsm.txt
>>> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu-leb/oneiric/+source/lib
>>> gsm/+copyright
>>>
>>>
>>> OSI-approved?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>
>>> Packages using this license:
>>>
>>> gsm / libgsm
>>>
>>> via inclusion of gsm code: ladspa, rplay, speex, some builds of vorbis
>>>
>>>
>>> Date:
>>>
>>> 1.0: 15-Sep-1992
>>> 2.0: 05-Apr-2009
>>>
>>>
>>> Explanation (non-normative):
>>>
>>> I did not find any reference to these licenses in the tracking page.  I
>>> have only seen this used in gsm; I do not know if the university has
>>> released other open source projects.  (No further packages were found
>>> searching for key, unique phrases in DuckDuckGo nor Google nor GitHub.)
>>>
>>> Fedora seems to consider this "MIT", but other than some similarities in
>>> 2.0 to MIT/PetSC and MIT/HP, this license has nothing more than a
>>> spiritual relation to MIT in my opinion.
>>>
>>> If this should instead be considered a MIT variant, I would be willing
>>> to resubmit as that.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> --arw
>>>
>>> --
>>> A. Wilcox (awilfox)
>>> Project Lead, Adélie Linux
>>> http://adelielinux.org
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 Request: TU-Berlin

[Dennis Clark]

Hi Legal Team,

For the record, the proposed license is currently recognized by ScanCode as
tu-berlin.

https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/4e63a6775a895fdec5a3a53f96013399fa34b1b7/src/licensedcode/data/licenses/tu-berlin.yml

Regards,
Dennis Clark


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:09 PM, A. Wilcox  wrote:

> Proposed Full Name:
>
> Technische Universitaet Berlin License
>
> Permissive Technische Universitaet Berlin License [???]
>
>
> Proposed Short Identifier:
>
> TU-Berlin-1.0
>
> TU-Berlin-2.0
>
>
> URL references:
>
> 1.0:
>
> http://alpha.tmit.bme.hu/pub/audio/gsm-1.0/copyrigh
> https://github.com/swh/ladspa/blob/master/gsm/COPYRIGHT
>
>
> 2.0:
>
> https://github.com/CorsixTH/deps/blob/master/licences/libgsm.txt
> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu-leb/oneiric/+source/libgsm/+copyright
>
>
> OSI-approved?
>
> No.
>
>
> Packages using this license:
>
> gsm / libgsm
>
> via inclusion of gsm code: ladspa, rplay, speex, some builds of vorbis
>
>
> Date:
>
> 1.0: 15-Sep-1992
> 2.0: 05-Apr-2009
>
>
> Explanation (non-normative):
>
> I did not find any reference to these licenses in the tracking page.  I
> have only seen this used in gsm; I do not know if the university has
> released other open source projects.  (No further packages were found
> searching for key, unique phrases in DuckDuckGo nor Google nor GitHub.)
>
> Fedora seems to consider this "MIT", but other than some similarities in
> 2.0 to MIT/PetSC and MIT/HP, this license has nothing more than a
> spiritual relation to MIT in my opinion.
>
> If this should instead be considered a MIT variant, I would be willing
> to resubmit as that.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
>
>
> Best,
> --arw
>
> --
> A. Wilcox (awilfox)
> Project Lead, Adélie Linux
> http://adelielinux.org
>
> ___
> 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 Request: TU-Berlin

[A. Wilcox]

Proposed Full Name:

Technische Universitaet Berlin License

Permissive Technische Universitaet Berlin License [???]


Proposed Short Identifier:

TU-Berlin-1.0

TU-Berlin-2.0


URL references:

1.0:

http://alpha.tmit.bme.hu/pub/audio/gsm-1.0/copyrigh
https://github.com/swh/ladspa/blob/master/gsm/COPYRIGHT


2.0:

https://github.com/CorsixTH/deps/blob/master/licences/libgsm.txt
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu-leb/oneiric/+source/libgsm/+copyright


OSI-approved?

No.


Packages using this license:

gsm / libgsm

via inclusion of gsm code: ladspa, rplay, speex, some builds of vorbis


Date:

1.0: 15-Sep-1992
2.0: 05-Apr-2009


Explanation (non-normative):

I did not find any reference to these licenses in the tracking page.  I
have only seen this used in gsm; I do not know if the university has
released other open source projects.  (No further packages were found
searching for key, unique phrases in DuckDuckGo nor Google nor GitHub.)

Fedora seems to consider this "MIT", but other than some similarities in
2.0 to MIT/PetSC and MIT/HP, this license has nothing more than a
spiritual relation to MIT in my opinion.

If this should instead be considered a MIT variant, I would be willing
to resubmit as that.

Thanks for your consideration.


Best,
--arw

-- 
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux
http://adelielinux.org
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin

Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.

As a matter of courtesy, the authors request to be informed about uses
this software has found, about bugs in this software, and about any
improvements that may be of general interest.

Berlin, 28.11.1994
Jutta Degener
Carsten Bormann

 oOo

Since the original terms of 15 years ago maybe do not make our
intentions completely clear given today's refined usage of the legal
terms, we append this additional permission:

  Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
  for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted,
  provided that this notice is not removed and that neither
  the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin are
  deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability
  of this software for any purpose nor are held responsible
  for any defects of this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
  WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.

Berkeley/Bremen, 05.04.2009
Jutta Degener
Carsten Bormann
Copyright 1992 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin

Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
are deemed to have made any representations as to the suitability of this
software for any purpose nor are held responsible for any defects of
this software.  THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY FOR THIS SOFTWARE.

As a matter of courtesy, the authors request to be informed about uses
this software has found, about bugs in this software, and about any
improvements that may be of general interest.

Berlin, 15.09.1992
Jutta Degener
Carsten Bormann


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

Re: New License Request: Linux-OpenIB

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, J Lovejoy  wrote:
> ok, great, that’s what we merged already. done :)
>
> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:21 PM, Dennis Clark  wrote:
>
> I think Linux-OpenIB is a perfect short identifier for this license.
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:15 AM, J Lovejoy  wrote:
>>
>> oh crikey, naming is so hard!

The name is fine by me alright. Thank you all for pushing this through
so quickly!

And I updated ScanCode accordingly FWIW
https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/tree/998-linux-openib-license

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

Re: New License Request: Linux-OpenIB

[J Lovejoy]

ok, great, that’s what we merged already. done :)



> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:21 PM, Dennis Clark  wrote:
> 
> I think Linux-OpenIB is a perfect short identifier for this license. 
> 
> Regards,
> Dennis
> 
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:15 AM, J Lovejoy  > wrote:
> oh crikey, naming is so hard!
> 
> the rationale for using “Linux-OpenIB” was to differentiate from the reality 
> that OpenIB.org  uses the real and full matching 
> BSD-2-Clause - so some kind of such differentiation is good.
> 
> Happy to add references to other examples in the Notes tag.
> 
> I’m torn as well - the Linux-specific reference feels less strong with that 
> many reference elsewhere. Using “openfabrics” is the same issue, different 
> tune. but I don’t know what else to come up with…
> 
> OpenIB-BSD-MIT  
> 
> Other thoughts?
> 
> Jilayne
> 
> SPDX Legal Team co-lead
> opensou...@jilayne.com 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:06 PM, Philippe Ombredanne > > wrote:
>> 
>> Kate:
>> 
>> Thank you for this excellent background and research!
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Kate Stewart
>> > wrote:
>> 
>>> Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception
>>> 
>>> Linux Kernel Variant of OpenIB.org  license
>>> 
>>> Provide a proposed Short Identifier.
>>> 
>>> Linux-OpenIB
>>> 
>>> Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either
>>> from the author or a community recognized source.
>>> 
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/infiniband/core/sa.h
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> FWIW, here is some extra information on usage of this license in these
>> user-space packages beyond the kernel:
>> 
>> - 470 occurences in libfabric https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric 
>> 
>> 
>> - 246 occurences in rdma-core https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/ 
>> 
>> 
>> These may be better references than the kernel.
>> 
>> Based on that, there could be an argument to have a different name /
>> id than Linux-OpenIB as this is not entirely Linux-specific.
>> The license is called BSD (MIT) at libfabric which is likely not a happy 
>> name.
>> May be something like openfabrics-bsd may be a better name?
>> NB: I feel very weakly about which name to pick, so feel free to
>> ignore this entirely.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 
> 
> 
> 

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

Re: New License Request: Linux-OpenIB

[Kate Stewart]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Philippe Ombredanne 
wrote:

> Kate:
>
> Thank you for this excellent background and research!
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Kate Stewart
>  wrote:
>
> > Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception
> >
> > Linux Kernel Variant of OpenIB.org license
> >
> > Provide a proposed Short Identifier.
> >
> > Linux-OpenIB
> >
> > Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text,
> either
> > from the author or a community recognized source.
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/
> linux.git/tree/drivers/infiniband/core/sa.h
>
>
> FWIW, here is some extra information on usage of this license in these
> user-space packages beyond the kernel:
>
> - 470 occurences in libfabric https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric


>
> - 246 occurences in rdma-core https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/
>
> These may be better references than the kernel.
>
> Based on that, there could be an argument to have a different name /
> id than Linux-OpenIB as this is not entirely Linux-specific.
> The license is called BSD (MIT) at libfabric which is likely not a happy
> name.
> May be something like openfabrics-bsd may be a better name?
> NB: I feel very weakly about which name to pick, so feel free to
> ignore this entirely.
>

Hi Philipe,
 I had looked at

https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric/blob/master/COPYING
actually has a BSD part that matches BSD-2-Clause
when doing the research.

Similarily:
http://web.mit.edu/freebsd/head/contrib/ofed/libsdp/COPYING
matches the BSD-2-Clause.

It was just the kernel that added the variant with the MIT paragraph
added in.The change was added in 2005,  so propagated as files
(and boiler plate) was copied,  out of the kernel.

At the same time it was added to the kernel,  the wayback machine
for OpenIB indicates the license there (canonical source), matched
the BSD-2-Clause. So I think keeping the ref as Linux-OpenIB
is probably appropriate for the kernel, and where its found in the
wild (via copying from the kernel files), but the related projects should
just stick to using dual license with BSD-2-Clause as their identifiers.

Thanks, Kate





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

Re: New License Request: Linux-OpenIB

[J Lovejoy]

oh crikey, naming is so hard!

the rationale for using “Linux-OpenIB” was to differentiate from the reality 
that OpenIB.org  uses the real and full matching 
BSD-2-Clause - so some kind of such differentiation is good.

Happy to add references to other examples in the Notes tag.

I’m torn as well - the Linux-specific reference feels less strong with that 
many reference elsewhere. Using “openfabrics” is the same issue, different 
tune. but I don’t know what else to come up with…

OpenIB-BSD-MIT  

Other thoughts?

Jilayne

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


> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:06 PM, Philippe Ombredanne  
> wrote:
> 
> Kate:
> 
> Thank you for this excellent background and research!
> 
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Kate Stewart
>  wrote:
> 
>> Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception
>> 
>> Linux Kernel Variant of OpenIB.org license
>> 
>> Provide a proposed Short Identifier.
>> 
>> Linux-OpenIB
>> 
>> Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either
>> from the author or a community recognized source.
>> 
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/infiniband/core/sa.h
> 
> 
> FWIW, here is some extra information on usage of this license in these
> user-space packages beyond the kernel:
> 
> - 470 occurences in libfabric https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric
> 
> - 246 occurences in rdma-core https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/
> 
> These may be better references than the kernel.
> 
> Based on that, there could be an argument to have a different name /
> id than Linux-OpenIB as this is not entirely Linux-specific.
> The license is called BSD (MIT) at libfabric which is likely not a happy name.
> May be something like openfabrics-bsd may be a better name?
> NB: I feel very weakly about which name to pick, so feel free to
> ignore this entirely.
> 
> -- 
> 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 Request: Linux-OpenIB

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Kate:

Thank you for this excellent background and research!

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Kate Stewart
 wrote:

> Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception
>
> Linux Kernel Variant of OpenIB.org license
>
> Provide a proposed Short Identifier.
>
> Linux-OpenIB
>
> Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either
> from the author or a community recognized source.
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/infiniband/core/sa.h


FWIW, here is some extra information on usage of this license in these
user-space packages beyond the kernel:

- 470 occurences in libfabric https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric

- 246 occurences in rdma-core https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/

These may be better references than the kernel.

Based on that, there could be an argument to have a different name /
id than Linux-OpenIB as this is not entirely Linux-specific.
The license is called BSD (MIT) at libfabric which is likely not a happy name.
May be something like openfabrics-bsd may be a better name?
NB: I feel very weakly about which name to pick, so feel free to
ignore this entirely.

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

Re: New License Request: Linux-OpenIB

[Kate Stewart]

This was moved to github https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/620

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Kate Stewart  wrote:

>
> *Background:In 2004 an industry association called Open Infiniband or
> "OpenIB" was founded to consolidate and upstream into Linux what is today
> drivers/infiniband.That group of companies mutually agreed to use a "dual
> GPL and BSD license" scheme and the membership agreement obligated the
> member companies to use such a license.*
>
>
>
>
> *The license text was first introduced to the linux kernel around 2005 and
> has been copied into >600 files (either as an include or directly). It
> looks like there are > 15 companies listed as copyright holders, some now
> defunct, so to aid with cleanup of the Linux kernel licensing, we’d like to
> get this variant of a combination BSD & MIT licenses to have its own
> identifier.Example:  include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_sa.h
> (which
> is copied into around 659 kernel files and is mistakenly labeled with “OR
> BSD-2-Clause”)*
>
> ** Copyright (c) 2005 Intel Corporation.  All rights reserved.*
>
> * **
>
> * * This software is available to you under a choice of one of two*
>
> * * licenses.  You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU*
>
> * * General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file*
>
> * * COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the*
>
> * * OpenIB.org BSD license below:*
>
> * **
>
> * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or*
>
> * * without modification, are permitted provided that the following*
>
> * * conditions are met:*
>
> * **
>
> * *  - Redistributions of source code must retain the above*
>
> * *copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following*
>
> * *disclaimer.*
>
> * **
>
> * *  - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above*
>
> * *copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following*
>
> * *disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials*
>
> * *provided with the distribution.*
>
> * **
>
> * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,*
>
> * * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF*
>
> * * MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND*
>
> * * NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS*
>
> * * BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN*
>
> * * ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN*
>
> * * CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE*
>
> * * SOFTWARE.*
>
>
>
>
> *https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/uapi/linux/rds.h
> Using
> the wayback machine:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20041204083759/http://openib.org:80/license.html
> *
>
> OpenIB BSD License
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>
> * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
> IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
> CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS;
> OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
> WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
> OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *In 2014 OpenIB.org Alliance expanded scope and became the OpenFabrics
> Alliance (OFA) https://www.openfabrics.org/index.php/organization.html
> If you look at the
> OpenFabric https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric/blob/master/COPYING
>   it is now clearly
> the BSD-2-Clause license as well,  but what was copied into the kernel
> files in 2005 and replicated throughout the kernel does not match.Somehow
> when 

New License Request: Linux-OpenIB

[Kate Stewart]

*Background:In 2004 an industry association called Open Infiniband or
"OpenIB" was founded to consolidate and upstream into Linux what is today
drivers/infiniband.That group of companies mutually agreed to use a "dual
GPL and BSD license" scheme and the membership agreement obligated the
member companies to use such a license.*




*The license text was first introduced to the linux kernel around 2005 and
has been copied into >600 files (either as an include or directly). It
looks like there are > 15 companies listed as copyright holders, some now
defunct, so to aid with cleanup of the Linux kernel licensing, we’d like to
get this variant of a combination BSD & MIT licenses to have its own
identifier.Example:  include/uapi/rdma/ib_user_sa.h
(which
is copied into around 659 kernel files and is mistakenly labeled with “OR
BSD-2-Clause”)*

** Copyright (c) 2005 Intel Corporation.  All rights reserved.*

* **

* * This software is available to you under a choice of one of two*

* * licenses.  You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU*

* * General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file*

* * COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the*

* * OpenIB.org BSD license below:*

* **

* * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or*

* * without modification, are permitted provided that the following*

* * conditions are met:*

* **

* *  - Redistributions of source code must retain the above*

* *copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following*

* *disclaimer.*

* **

* *  - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above*

* *copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following*

* *disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials*

* *provided with the distribution.*

* **

* * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,*

* * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF*

* * MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND*

* * NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS*

* * BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN*

* * ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN*

* * CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE*

* * SOFTWARE.*




*https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/uapi/linux/rds.h
Using
the wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20041204083759/http://openib.org:80/license.html
*

OpenIB BSD License

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.


THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.














*In 2014 OpenIB.org Alliance expanded scope and became the OpenFabrics
Alliance (OFA) https://www.openfabrics.org/index.php/organization.html
If you look at the
OpenFabric https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric/blob/master/COPYING
  it is now clearly
the BSD-2-Clause license as well,  but what was copied into the kernel
files in 2005 and replicated throughout the kernel does not match.Somehow
when drivers/infiniband was first merged it contained the license text used
in the kernel today, and its unclear where Roland Drier got the text
from.From there all the member companies copy and pasted that text, and it
has become the canonical text in the linux kernel for the infiniband
driver.   After that it appeared to spread into other parts of the kernel,
eg. crypto, 

Re: New License Request: FB-Patents-2.0

[W. Trevor King]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:53:47AM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote:
> Based on feedback from W. Trevor King (thank you!!), here is round 2.

Cross-linking round 1 [1].

> Here I propose this Facebook rider as a new *license* instead of
> separate license *exception*… I had proposed the name
> “ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES” as a license exception.  However,
> it has been previously agreed that this situation should be handled
> as a stand-alone license, and then used this way: "(BSD-3-Clause AND
> FB-Patents-2.0)".

This proposal is for a license ID for the patent grant (not including
the BSD-3-Clause).  In previous discussion, a license that included
*both* the BSD-3-Clause and the patent rider was also floated (maybe
Facebook-BSD-Patent-2.0) [2,3], I think mostly due to concerns about
whether the explicit patent rider impacts the BSD's implicit patent
grant (if the “implicit patent grant” has legs at all) [2,4].  If the
legal team is not concerned about interactions like that, then minting
a new license/exception ID for just the patent grant is fine.  If the
legal team is concerned about the BSD-3-Clause / Facebook-Patent-2.0
interaction, then that single Facebook-BSD-Patent-2.0 license is one
viable approach.  Alternatively, the previous discussion of this issue
turned up some systemic adjustments to represent these potential “read
together” issues more generally:

* Splitting the current AND operator into AND and PLUS, where [5]:

  * x AND y := contains code licensed per and code licensed per y
  * x PLUS y := contains code licensed per combination of x and y

  The advantage of this would be that PLUS may be impacted by these
  “read together” issues while AND would not.  Folks who are not
  worried about those sort of impacts can ignore the distinction.

* Generalizing WITH to mean “append this text” [6] without implying
  something about what an “exception” means [7,8].  This is similar to
  the AND/PLUS split, but the PLUS case is squashed into WITH.

  The advantage of this would be that WITH becomes much more powerful
  and the legal team can become much less opinionated once it doesn't
  need to distinguish “stand-alone licenses” from “riders granting
  execptions” from “other types of riders”.  The drawback is that
  users who trusted the legal-team's calls on that would no longer
  have programmatic access to the legal team's positions.

Other benefits to all the composite approaches are that React's
license expression will include ‘BSD-3-Clause’ and you can have a
one-to-one mapping between files and entries in the
PackageLicenseInfoFromFiles field [9].

I don't have a personal opinion on all of this other than a vague
concern that the patent grant may be too broad to qualify for the 2.1
spec's WITH scope [10], and the license ID for the Facebook patent
grant (as proposed in this thread) avoids that concern.

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-August/002119.html
 Subject: New License/Exception Request: 
ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES-2.0 as a new exception
 Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:22:37 -0400
 Message-ID: 
<9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1b75b6f3...@exch07-4850.ida.org>
[2]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-June/002720.html
 Subject: [Bug 1292] New: What is the correct license expression
   for a project with an additional patent license?
 Date: Mon Jun 15 19:00:37 UTC 2015
[3]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-June/002722.html
 Subject: [Bug 1292] New: What is the correct license expression
   for a project with an additional patent license?
 Date: Tue Jun 16 07:46:13 UTC 2015
[4]: https://lwn.net/Articles/728178/
 Subject: Apache disallows the Facebook BSD+patent license
 Date: 2017-07-18
[5]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-June/002723.html
 Subject: [Bug 1292] New: What is the correct license expression
   for a project with an additional patent license?
 Date: Tue Jun 16 17:22:46 UTC 2015
[6]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-June/002727.html
 Subject: [Bug 1292] New: What is the correct license expression
   for a project with an additional patent license?
 Date: Wed Jun 17 12:37:48 UTC 2015
[7]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-July/002036.html
 Subject: revised wording for top of exceptions page
 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 23:35:40 +0100
 Message-Id: <5F1D2C18-6D14-4CCD-80D3-6008588BB893 at jilayne.com>
[8]: https://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2017-July/002078.html
 Subject: revised text for top of exceptions page
 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:34:12 -0600
 Message-Id: 
[9]: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.32hioqz
[10]: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy


signature.asc

New License Request: FB-Patents-2.0

[Wheeler, David A]

Based on feedback from W. Trevor King (thank you!!), here is round 2.
Here I propose this Facebook rider as a new *license* instead of separate 
license *exception*.
The proposal is below; I'm including a modified "INTRODUCTION" to give context.

INTRODUCTION:
Many Facebook projects, including the widely-used React.js, have a different 
license approach than others: They use a stock OSS license *with* a special 
patent-related rider (in the case of React.js, this is in a file named 
PATENTS).  This patent rider is asymmetric, which has led to the Apache 
Software Foundation requiring that *all* of the Apache projects stop 
incorporating any project with this rider, and it appears that other companies 
also have this policy.  Thus, for some organizations it is vital that they be 
able to *detect* this rider.

As far as I can tell SPDX currently has no way to report this information as a 
standard license or license exception.  That needs to change.  If SPDX *can* 
report it, please let me know - maybe I missed it!

McCoy Smith has noted that there’s an additional source of confusion:
➢ Adding to the confusion is that FB frequently refers to their React.js 
license as "BSD+Patents" (plural), although that nomenclature appears somewhat 
recent (and, I think, post-dates the submission of the "BSD+Patent" -- singular 
-- license to OSI in early 2016).
That OSI-approved license is now referred to as BSD-2-Clause-Patent, but since 
the React license is *different*, this leads to a lot of confusion.

This rider is on a number of popular OSS projects, so I think it meets the 
conditions for inclusion.  Also, I think SPDX needs to add this information 
*soon* to eliminate the confusion.

I had proposed the name “ANY-PATENT-ASSERTION-TERMINATES” as a license 
exception.  However, it has been previously agreed that this situation should 
be handled as a stand-alone license, and then used this way: "(BSD-3-Clause AND 
FB-Patents-2.0)".  Thus, this proposal formalizes the approach that has already 
been agreed to in principle:
https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292#c2
My thanks to W. Trevor King for this clarification!

This license is *NOT* already listed on the “licenses and exceptions under 
consideration”: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681
Again, note that this is NOT the same as BSD-2-Clause-Patent.

I suggest this name because it's been referenced before.  There are good 
reasons for using "Facebook-Patents-2.0" instead, since that would be easier to 
find, so I'd be happy with that.  While it need not be used only by Facebook, 
Facebook is the first main user of the license, and many other licenses are 
named by their originator (e.g., MIT and BSD).  I just want to agree on a name.

=




1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception: Additional Grant 
of Patent Rights where patent assertion terminates Version 2
2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier: FB-Patents-2.0
3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either 
from the author or a community recognized source:  
https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS
4. Create and attach a text file with the license or exception text from the 
url provided in #3. Please proofread the text file to ensure that: 
a. Information has not been lost or modified.
b. Formatting is clean and consistent with the license or exception URL.
5. Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved (see: 
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) or whether it has been 
submitted for approval to the OSI and is currently under review: Not OSI 
approved
6. Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license or exception 
to be included on the SPDX License List, including identifying at least one 
program that uses this license: See above.  It's in wide use, but organizations 
such as the Apache Software Foundation forbid including software licensed with 
this exception, so it's important to report its presence.

I'm attaching the text by copying it below from 
; users might replace 
"Facebook"/"Facebook, Inc." with someone else.

--- David A. Wheeler


=== LICENSE EXCEPTION TEXT ===

Additional Grant of Patent Rights Version 2

"Software" means the React software distributed by Facebook, Inc.

Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each recipient of the Software
("you") a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable 
(subject to the termination provision below) license under any Necessary 
Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise 
transfer the Software. For avoidance of doubt, no license is granted under 
Facebook's rights in any patent claims that are infringed by (i) modifications 
to the Software made by you or any third party or (ii) the Software in 
combination with any software or other 

Re: New License Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License

[Richard Fontana]

Re-reading the SPDX matching guidelines, one sentence I had been completely 
overlooking seems to address some of the concerns I've had about 
BSD-3-Clause-variant licenses: "T he text indicated as such can be replaced 
with similar values (e.g., a different name or generic term; different date) 
and still be considered a positive match." However I find this sentence 
difficult to interpret -- do "similar" and "different" refer to the 
parameterized things in the SPDX version, or do they instead go to internal 
consistency within a real-world instance of a license type? -- and I might not 
be reading it correctly. 

In light of that sentence, the way I am assuming it should be read, the colored 
items in, for example, https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html are not 
supposed to be understood to be strict internally-consistent placeholders - for 
example, the fact that " THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS" is used in the 
first sentence in the disclaimer does not mean that " THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR 
CONTRIBUTORS " is supposed to correspond to the first sentence such that an 
instantiation of "COPYRIGHT HOLDER" in the first sentence must match an 
instantiation of "COPYRIGHT HOLDER" in the second sentence (as an aside, I 
assume the inconsistency in pluralization of COPYRIGHT HOLDER is the result of 
copying of the OSI version of the 3-clause BSD license, which probably will get 
fixed on the OSI website). 

In the case of the GHC license, we have a very small discrepancy relative to 
the SPDX version: " THE UNIVERSITY COURT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW AND THE 
CONTRIBUTORS" in the first sentence of the disclaimer and " THE UNIVERSITY 
COURT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW OR THE CONTRIBUTORS" in the second sentence. 
I can read the sentence I quoted above from the matching guidelines to indicate 
that "THE CONTRIBUTORS" matches article-less "CONTRIBUTORS", but if that's a 
correct reading I think it should be stated more clearly. 


- Original Message -

From: "W. Trevor King" <wk...@tremily.us> 
To: "David A Wheeler" <dwhee...@ida.org> 
Cc: "Richard Fontana" <rfont...@redhat.com>, "J Lovejoy" 
<opensou...@jilayne.com>, "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>, "David 
Parrish" <daveparr...@tutanota.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:13:40 PM 
Subject: Re: New License Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License 

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 02:59:30PM -0400, Wheeler, David A wrote: 


Richard Fontana: 
> The way I read the matching guidelines this license does not 
> actually match to BSD-3-Clause, even though it obviously should. 
> I think the problem is that I am reading the matching guidelines 
> more literally than they may be intended to be read, but given 
> that this is supposed to be a formal specification I think the 
> matching guidelines ought to be made more precise. For example, if 
> the word "the" is optional in certain contexts for purposes of 
> matching, that ought to be accounted for in the formulation of the 
> matching guidelines. 

I think those are bugs in the matching guidelines, not a failure to 
match ☺. If there are bugs, I think they should be fixed! 

Are you suggesting a blanket: 




All articles (“a”, “an”, “the”, …) are optional for matching 
purposes. 

in [1]? Or are you suggesting BSD-3-Clause be updated to use: 

3. Neither <<var;name=organizationArticleClause3;original=the ;match=.+>>name 
of 

Cheers, 
Trevor 

[1]: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines 

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). 
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy 
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

RE: New License Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License

[Wheeler, David A]

Richard Fontana:
> The way I read the matching guidelines this license does not actually match 
> to BSD-3-Clause, even though it obviously should.  I think the problem is 
> that I am reading the matching guidelines more literally than they may be 
> intended to be read, but given that this is supposed to be a formal 
> specification I think the matching guidelines ought to be made more precise. 
> For example, if the word "the" is optional in certain contexts for purposes 
> of matching, that ought to be accounted for in the formulation of the 
> matching guidelines.

I think those are bugs in the matching guidelines, not a failure to match ☺.  
If there are bugs, I think they should be fixed!

--- David A. Wheeler

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

Re: New License Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License

[Richard Fontana]

The way I read the matching guidelines this license does not actually match to 
BSD-3-Clause, even though it obviously should. I think the problem is that I am 
reading the matching guidelines more literally than they may be intended to be 
read, but given that this is supposed to be a formal specification I think the 
matching guidelines ought to be made more precise. For example, if the word 
"the" is optional in certain contexts for purposes of matching, that ought to 
be accounted for in the formulation of the matching guidelines. (I recently was 
engaged in an activity in which I attempted to make use of SPDX identifiers and 
found this to be a common problem, particularly with respect to licenses 
closely resembling the specified templates for BSD-3-Clause and BSD-2-Clause). 

- Original Message -

From: "J Lovejoy" <opensou...@jilayne.com> 
To: "David Wheeler" <dwhee...@ida.org> 
Cc: "SPDX-legal" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>, "David Parrish" 
<daveparr...@tutanota.com> 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02:03 AM 
Subject: Re: New License Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License 

Hi David (P), 

David W is right - this is the same license as BSD-3-Clause. The only 
difference is in the “replaceable” text (i.e., the names) as per the license 
matching guidelines and which you can see visually in the red text on the 
license webpage here: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html 

Thanks, 
Jilayne 


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





On May 1, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Wheeler, David A < dwhee...@ida.org > wrote: 

David Parrish: 


1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. 
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License 
2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier. 
ghc 
3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either 
from the author or a community recognized source. 
https://www.haskell.org/ghc/license 



This appears to be an existing SPDX license, BSD-3-Clause. See: 
https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause 

This is a widely-used OSI-approved license. 

--- David A. Wheeler 

___ 
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 Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License

[J Lovejoy]

Hi David (P),

David W is right - this is the same license as BSD-3-Clause. The only 
difference is in the “replaceable” text (i.e., the names) as per the license 
matching guidelines and which you can see visually in the red text on the 
license webpage here: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html 


Thanks,
Jilayne


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


> On May 1, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Wheeler, David A  wrote:
> 
> David Parrish:
>> 1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception.
>> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License
>> 2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier.
>> ghc
>> 3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, 
>> either from the author or a community recognized source.
>> https://www.haskell.org/ghc/license
> 
> This appears to be an existing SPDX license, BSD-3-Clause.  See:
>  https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> 
> This is a widely-used OSI-approved license.
> 
> --- David A. Wheeler
> 
> ___
> 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 Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License

[Wheeler, David A]

David Parrish:
> 1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception.
> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License
> 2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier.
> ghc
>3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, 
>either from the author or a community recognized source.
> https://www.haskell.org/ghc/license

This appears to be an existing SPDX license, BSD-3-Clause.  See:
  https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

This is a widely-used OSI-approved license.

--- David A. Wheeler

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

New License Request: The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License

[David Parrish]

1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception.
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License

2. Provide a proposed Short Identifier.
ghc
3. Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either 
from the author or a community recognized source.
https://www.haskell.org/ghc/license

4. Create and attach a text file with the license or exception text from the 
url provided in #3. Please proofread the text file to ensure that:Information 
has not been lost or modified.Formatting is clean and consistent with the 
license or exception URL.
See attached file: LICENSE

5. Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved (see: 
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) or whether it has been 
submitted for approval to the OSI and is currently under review.
I have no idea.
6. Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license or exception 
to be included on the SPDX License List, including identifying at least one 
program that uses this license.

I am referencing a license within the Habitat software. Habitat uses this list 
to reference a license but the GHC license doesn't exist in the list.

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

Re: New License Request: Zero Clause BSD

[Dennis Clark]

Hi Everyone,

I have added BSD-0-Clause to our Licenses under Consideration worksheet
(worksheet Row 11):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11AKxLBoN_VXM32OmDTk2hKeYExKzsnPjAVM7rLstQ8s/edit?pli=1#gid=695212681

I am afraid that our format does not really handle the extensive discussion
recorded in these emails, so we will need to refer to those emails when we
discuss these in the Legal team meeting.

Regards,
Dennis Clark
nexB Inc.


On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Sam Ellis sam.el...@arm.com wrote:

 Hi Rob,

  It was a 2 clause OpenBSD license linked as License Template from the
  top of http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html with half a sentence removed
  (ala https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/ee86b1d8e25c).

 Thanks for the additional information on the history of this license. It's
 nice to understand where it has come from.


 -- 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.

 ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ,
 Registered in England  Wales, Company No:  2557590
 ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ,
 Registered in England  Wales, Company No:  2548782

 ___
 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 Request: Zero Clause BSD

[Sam Ellis]

Despite it being called BSD-style I actually think it is more reminiscent of 
MIT license.

BSD licenses often start with Redistribution and use... 
(https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html).
MIT licenses often start with Permission is hereby granted... 
(http://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html).

The original license that this one derives from 
(https://github.com/landley/toybox/blob/c2806decbff81cc05e107a9091042f01ad61dc13/LICENSE)
 looks very clearly MIT to me (compare with 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_2).

So I guess there is a difference between how I would classify this versus how 
it is actually known in the wild.


From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On 
Behalf Of Rob Landley [r...@landley.net]
Sent: 15 June 2015 17:59
To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: New License Request: Zero Clause BSD

 Submission Requirements:

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception.

BSD 0-clause Public Domain Equivalent License.

Provide a proposed Short Identifier.

BSD-0-Clause

Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception
 text, either from the author or a community recognized source.

http://landley.net/toybox/license.html

Create and attach a text file with the license or exception text
 from the url provided in #3. Please proofread the text file to ensure
 that:
Information has not been lost or modified.
Formatting is clean and consistent with the license or
 exception URL.

Copyright 2015 by Your Name Here y...@email.here

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No] (see:
 http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). If yes, provide
 link to the OSI license and verify that it is the same text as
 supplied in #4.

No.

(I Haven't submitted it to them because they haven't got unlicense, cc0,
or wtfpl either. Apparently public domain equivalent is not considered
open source by those guys?)

Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license or
 exception to be included on the SPDX License List, including
 identifying at least one program that uses this license.

This is the license used by Toybox, which was merged into android and
tizen. Other projects are considering it, which is why SPDX was suggested.

The above URL has a Why 0BSD? section, cut and pasted here (minus the
embedded links):

Why 0BSD?

As with CC0, unlicense, and wtfpl, the intent is to place the licensed
material into the public domain, which after decades of FUD (such as the
time OSI's ex-lawyer compared placing code into the public domain to
abandoning trash by the side of a highway) is considered somehow unsafe.
But if some random third party takes public domain code and slaps some
other license on it, then it's fine.

To work around this perception, the above license is a standard 2-clause
BSD license minus the half sentence requiring text copied verbatim into
derived works. If 2BSD is ok, the 0BSD should be ok, despite being
equivalent to placing code in the public domain.

Modifying the license in this way avoids the hole android toolbox fell
into where 33 copies of BSD license text were concatenated together when
copyright dates changed, or the strange solution the busybox developers
used to resolve tension between GPLv2's no additional restrictions and
BSD's you must include this large hunk of text by sticking the two
licenses at opposite ends of the file and hoping nobody noticed.

-- 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.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered 
in England  Wales, Company No:  2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
Registered in England  Wales, Company No:  2548782

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

New License Request

[Sam Ellis]

Hi,

I would like to propose the addition of SGI’s GLX license to the SPDX license 
list, as follows:

Short name: SGI-GLX-1.0
Long name: SGI GLX Public License v1.0
URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/GLX_Public_License
License specimen: attached to this email
OSI approved: no
Evidence of use: This license is referenced in recent releases of Oracle’s Java 
8 software, for example, see Oracle’s third-party IP disclosure 
(http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/thirdpartylicensereadme-java8-2168078.txt)
 and search for the term ‘GLX’.


--
Sam Ellis

-- 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.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered 
in England  Wales, Company No:  2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
Registered in England  Wales, Company No:  2548782GLX PUBLIC LICENSE (Version 1.0 (2/11/99)) (License)

Subject to any third party claims, Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) hereby
grants permission to Recipient (defined below), under Recipient's
copyrights in the Original Software (defined below), to use, copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense and/or sell copies of
Subject Software (defined below), and to permit persons to whom the
Subject Software is furnished in accordance with this License to do the
same, subject to all of the following terms and conditions, which
Recipient accepts by engaging in any such use, copying, modifying,
merging, publishing, distributing, sublicensing or selling:

1. Definitions.

(a) Original Software means source code of computer software code
which is described in Exhibit A as Original Software.

(b) Modifications means any addition to or deletion from the
substance or structure of either the Original Software or any
previous Modifications. When Subject Software is released as a
series of files, a Modification means (i) any addition to or
deletion from the contents of a file containing Original Software or
previous Modifications and (ii) any new file that contains any part
of the Original Code or previous Modifications.

(c) Subject Software means the Original Software or Modifications
or the combination of the Original Software and Modifications, or
portions of any of the foregoing.

(d) Recipient means an individual or a legal entity exercising
rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License.
For legal entities, Recipient includes any entity which controls,
is controlled by, or is under common control with Recipient. For
purposes of this definition, control of an entity means (a) the
power, direct or indirect, to direct or manage such entity, or (b)
ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares
or beneficial ownership of such entity.

2. Redistribution of Source Code Subject to These Terms. Redistributions
of Subject Software in source code form must retain the notice set forth
in Exhibit A, below, in every file. A copy of this License must be
included in any documentation for such Subject Software where the
recipients' rights relating to Subject Software are described. Recipient
may distribute the source code version of Subject Software under a
license of Recipient's choice, which may contain terms different from
this License, provided that (i) Recipient is in compliance with the
terms of this License, and (ii) the license terms include this Section 2
and Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of this License, which terms may
not be modified or superseded by any other terms of such license. If
Recipient distributes the source code version under a different license
Recipient must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from
this License are offered by Recipient alone, not by SGI. Recipient
hereby agrees to indemnify SGI for any liability incurred by SGI as a
result of any such terms Recipient offers.

3. Redistribution in Executable Form. The notice set forth in Exhibit A
must be conspicuously included in any notice in an executable version of
Subject Software, related documentation or collateral in which Recipient
describes the user's rights relating to the Subject Software. Recipient
may distribute the executable version of Subject Software under a
license of Recipient's choice, which may contain terms different from
this License, provided that (i) Recipient is in compliance with the
terms of this License, and (ii) the license terms include this Section 3
and Sections 4, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of this License, which terms may not
be modified or superseded by any other terms of such license. If
Recipient distributes the executable version under a 

Re: New License Request

[J Lovejoy]

Hi Maciej,

As per discussion on the SPDX Legal Call today, this license will be added to 
the next version of the SPDX License List.

Thanks for your request!

Cheers,
Jilayne

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


On Apr 1, 2014, at 4:07 AM, Maciej Wereski m.were...@partner.samsung.com 
wrote:

 Dear Ladies and Gentleman,
 
 I'm not sure weather this should be considered BSD 4-Clause, so I've
 decided to submit request.
 
 Full Name of License:
 BSD 4-clause Caldera License
 
 License Identifier (aka SPDX Short Identifier):
 BSD-4-Clause-Caldera
 
 Source/url:
 http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/
 
 Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved:
 No
 
 Reason to add:
 This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi).
 
 kind regards,
 -- 
 Maciej Wereski
 Samsung RD Institute Poland
 Samsung Electronics
 m.were...@partner.samsung.comcaldera.txt___
 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 Request

[Dennis Clark]

Proposed license accepted in v1.20.  Because of significant differences in
license terms, it was decided by the SPDX legal team 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.

Regards,
Dennis Clark
nexB Inc.



On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Maciej Wereski 
m.were...@partner.samsung.com wrote:

 Dear Ladies and Gentleman,

 I'm not sure weather this should be considered BSD 4-Clause, so I've
 decided to submit request.

 Full Name of License:
 BSD 4-clause Caldera License

 License Identifier (aka SPDX Short Identifier):
 BSD-4-Clause-Caldera

 Source/url:
 http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/

 Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved:
 No

 Reason to add:
 This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi).

 kind regards,
 --
 Maciej Wereski
 Samsung RD Institute Poland
 Samsung Electronics
 m.were...@partner.samsung.com
 ___
 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 Request

[Maciej Wereski]

Dear Ladies and Gentleman,

I'm not sure weather this should be considered BSD 4-Clause, so I've
decided to submit request.

Full Name of License:
BSD 4-clause Caldera License

License Identifier (aka SPDX Short Identifier):
BSD-4-Clause-Caldera

Source/url:
http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/

Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved:
No

Reason to add:
This license is used in some older software (e.g. The Traditional Vi).

kind regards,
--
Maciej Wereski
Samsung RD Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
m.were...@partner.samsung.com240 West Center Street
Orem, Utah 84057
801-765-4999 Fax 801-765-4481

January 23, 2002

Dear UNIX enthusiasts,

Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the 
rights use, modify and distribute this named
source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source 
code. The source code for which Caldera
International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating 
Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11
CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific 
exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX
System V and successor operating systems:

32-bit 32V UNIX
16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Caldera International, Inc. makes no guarantees or commitments that any source 
code is available from Caldera
International, Inc.

The following copyright notice applies to the source code files for which this 
license is granted.

Copyright(C) Caldera International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the
following conditions are met:

Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above 
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above 
copyright notice, this list of conditions
and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials 
provided with the distribution.

All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must 
display the following acknowledgement:

This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc.

Neither the name of Caldera International, Inc. nor the names of other 
contributors may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

USE OF THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS LICENSE BY CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, 
INC.
AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, 
BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A 
PARTICULAR
PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. BE LIABLE 
FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; 
LOSS OF
USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY 
THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE 
OR
OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED 
OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.


Very truly yours,

/signed/ Bill Broderick

Bill Broderick
Director, Licensing Services

* UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the US and other 
countries.
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

RE: New license request

[Tom Incorvia]

Hi Jilayne,

Thanks for pointing out the possible flexibility in the license list; Oliver, 
thanks again for taking the time to submit this license.  I'll be on the call 
today - great if you could join us in the discussion.

With regards to the contributions need not be in source code form, I was 
referring to section G: Binary Code Files - The software may include certain 
binary code files for which its source code is not included as part of the 
software, or that are packaged without the source code in an installable or 
executable package. As to these binary code files, unless applicable law gives 
you more rights despite this limitation, you must comply with all technical 
limitations in those files that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You 
may not modify, work around any technical limitations in, or reverse engineer, 
decompile or disassemble these binary code files, except and only to the extent 
that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com; 
O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
From: J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:17 PM
To: Tom Incorvia
Cc: Oliver Fendt; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: New license request

Hi Oliver, Tom,

Just to clarify on Tom's points - the normal process is to review based on the 
OSD as a starting point, although for a license to be on the SPDX License List, 
it does not need to strictly adhere to the OSD (see more info here, in 
particular, the bit under Candidate License Analysis 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview)

So, thanks to Oliver for his submission and to Tom for beginning the process 
via email (we do need more of that...) and surely the discussion will continue 
on the next legal call, which is tomorrow (hint hint)!

Tom, I'm not entirely clear what you mean by 'contributions need not be in 
source code form - which section are you referring to?

Oliver, I can't remember what time zone you are in, but if you can join the 
call tomorrow, that would be helpful for the discussion, I'm sure.  It's at 1pm 
ET and the dial-in info is:
Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849
Enter this PIN: 336247
Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio

Cheers,
Jilayne

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

On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tom Incorvia 
tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com wrote:


Hello Fendt,

I have been out of the SPDX mix for a while, but I believe that this license 
would not be considered an open source license based on theOSI 
criteriahttp://opensource.org/osd-annotated - this license is used by 
Microsoft for certain free distributions (for instance, the Microsoft Parallel 
Computing Platform).  However, these distributions have restrictions:

-  Contributions need not be in source code form
-  The license grants are limited to Microsoft platforms
-  Reverse engineering of binary files is prohibited (except where 
local law expressly permits)

I worked with SPDX for several years, and contributions like this are valued.  
If you are interested in contributing as a team member, please communicate with 
Philip Odence 
pode...@blackducksoftware.commailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com, to 
determine which team would be the best fit - we are always looking for 
individuals who are involved in licensing.

Thanks,

Tom Incorvia
Tom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com; 
O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
From: 
spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.orgmailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Fendt, Oliver
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:31 AM
To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.orgmailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: New license request

Hi all,

We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX license 
list and I did not find it in the list licenses under consideration,  due to 
this I want to request that it will be included in the SPDX license list.
Please find below the required information for inclusion. The information 
provided by me is marked with [Oliver]

Thanks in advance. Please contact me if there are questions.

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license.
[Oliver] Microsoft patterns  practices License

Provide a proposed License Short Identifier.
[Oliver]  MSPPL

Provide a functioning URL reference to the license text, either from the 
license author or a community recognized source for the license text.
[Oliver] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx

Create and attach a text file with the license text from the URL provided in 
#3. Proofread license text file to ensure that:
[Oliver]

Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No]
[Oliver] No

Provide a short explanation regarding

AW: New license request

[Fendt, Oliver]

Hi Jilayne, hi Tom

Thank you for the feedback.
I will try to make it to be in the telco.

This is a very interesting discussion. From a practical point of view  we need 
a standard to provide license and copyright information of 3rd party software. 
Further it would be wonderful if there is one place where one can find a 
complete collection of (OSS) licenses. It would be great if we can use SPDX one 
day in future for the declaration of 3rd party software no matter whether the 
3rd party software is OSS or not. This would really make live a lot easier. Of 
course I understand that this is part of the open compliance program and not 
part of a 3rd party software compliance program. But  I think that the 
standard is powerful enough to serve both OSS (which is a special case of third 
party software) and other 3rd party software .

Thanks
Oliver
Von: Tom Incorvia [mailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 13:39
An: J Lovejoy
Cc: Fendt, Oliver; SPDX-legal
Betreff: RE: New license request

Hi Jilayne,

Thanks for pointing out the possible flexibility in the license list; Oliver, 
thanks again for taking the time to submit this license.  I'll be on the call 
today - great if you could join us in the discussion.

With regards to the contributions need not be in source code form, I was 
referring to section G: Binary Code Files - The software may include certain 
binary code files for which its source code is not included as part of the 
software, or that are packaged without the source code in an installable or 
executable package. As to these binary code files, unless applicable law gives 
you more rights despite this limitation, you must comply with all technical 
limitations in those files that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You 
may not modify, work around any technical limitations in, or reverse engineer, 
decompile or disassemble these binary code files, except and only to the extent 
that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com; 
O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
From: J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:17 PM
To: Tom Incorvia
Cc: Oliver Fendt; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: New license request

Hi Oliver, Tom,

Just to clarify on Tom's points - the normal process is to review based on the 
OSD as a starting point, although for a license to be on the SPDX License List, 
it does not need to strictly adhere to the OSD (see more info here, in 
particular, the bit under Candidate License Analysis 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview)

So, thanks to Oliver for his submission and to Tom for beginning the process 
via email (we do need more of that...) and surely the discussion will continue 
on the next legal call, which is tomorrow (hint hint)!

Tom, I'm not entirely clear what you mean by 'contributions need not be in 
source code form - which section are you referring to?

Oliver, I can't remember what time zone you are in, but if you can join the 
call tomorrow, that would be helpful for the discussion, I'm sure.  It's at 1pm 
ET and the dial-in info is:
Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849
Enter this PIN: 336247
Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio

Cheers,
Jilayne

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

On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tom Incorvia 
tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com wrote:

Hello Fendt,

I have been out of the SPDX mix for a while, but I believe that this license 
would not be considered an open source license based on theOSI 
criteriahttp://opensource.org/osd-annotated - this license is used by 
Microsoft for certain free distributions (for instance, the Microsoft Parallel 
Computing Platform).  However, these distributions have restrictions:

-  Contributions need not be in source code form
-  The license grants are limited to Microsoft platforms
-  Reverse engineering of binary files is prohibited (except where 
local law expressly permits)

I worked with SPDX for several years, and contributions like this are valued.  
If you are interested in contributing as a team member, please communicate with 
Philip Odence 
pode...@blackducksoftware.commailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com, to 
determine which team would be the best fit - we are always looking for 
individuals who are involved in licensing.

Thanks,

Tom Incorvia
Tom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com; 
O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
From: 
spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.orgmailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Fendt, Oliver
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:31 AM
To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.orgmailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: New license request

Hi

Re: AW: New license request

[Philip Odence]

Oliver,
What you say makes conceptual sense and perhaps we might “go there” some day 
with the license list. At this point in order to do a good job with the 
resources we have we have decided to say focused on open source, although we 
have let that definition go beyond the 67 or so licenses that the OSI has 
approved. So, your request is a reasonable one.
I will point out, just in case you are not aware, that there is a mechanism in 
the spec for handling licenses that are not on the list. Essentially you can 
create an addendum to the license list locally to the particular SPDX doc and 
in that define other licenses (by including the text) and associated short 
names for use in that SPDX doc.
Phil
L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Corporate and Business Development
Black Duck Software, Inc.
8 New England Executive Park, Suite 211, Burlington MA 01803
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502
Skype: philip.odence
pode...@blackducksoftware.commailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com
http://www.blackducksoftware.comhttp://www.blackducksoftware.com/
http://twitter.com/podence
http://www.linkedin.com/in/podence
http://www.networkworld.com/community/odence (my blog)



From: Fendt, Oliver 
oliver.fe...@siemens.commailto:oliver.fe...@siemens.com
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:17:33 +
To: Tom Incorvia 
tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com, Jilayne 
Lovejoy opensou...@jilayne.commailto:opensou...@jilayne.com
Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.orgmailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org 
spdx-legal@lists.spdx.orgmailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: AW: New license request

Hi Jilayne, hi Tom

Thank you for the feedback.
I will try to make it to be in the telco.

This is a very interesting discussion. From a practical point of view  we need 
a standard to provide license and copyright information of 3rd party software. 
Further it would be wonderful if there is one place where one can find a 
complete collection of (OSS) licenses. It would be great if we can use SPDX one 
day in future for the declaration of “3rd party software” no matter whether the 
3rd party software is OSS or not. This would really make live a lot easier. Of 
course I understand that this is part of the open compliance program and not 
part of a “3rd party software compliance program”. But  I think that the 
standard is powerful enough to serve both OSS (which is a special case of third 
party software) and other 3rd party software .

Thanks
Oliver
Von: Tom Incorvia [mailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 13:39
An: J Lovejoy
Cc: Fendt, Oliver; SPDX-legal
Betreff: RE: New license request

Hi Jilayne,

Thanks for pointing out the possible flexibility in the license list; Oliver, 
thanks again for taking the time to submit this license.  I’ll be on the call 
today – great if you could join us in the discussion.

With regards to the “contributions need not be in source code form”, I was 
referring to section G: Binary Code Files - The software may include certain 
binary code files for which its source code is not included as part of the 
software, or that are packaged without the source code in an installable or 
executable package. As to these binary code files, unless applicable law gives 
you more rights despite this limitation, you must comply with all technical 
limitations in those files that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You 
may not modify, work around any technical limitations in, or reverse engineer, 
decompile or disassemble these binary code files, except and only to the extent 
that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com; 
O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
From: J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:17 PM
To: Tom Incorvia
Cc: Oliver Fendt; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: New license request

Hi Oliver, Tom,

Just to clarify on Tom’s points - the normal process is to review based on the 
OSD as a starting point, although for a license to be on the SPDX License List, 
it does not need to strictly adhere to the OSD (see more info here, in 
particular, the bit under “Candidate License Analysis” 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview)

So, thanks to Oliver for his submission and to Tom for beginning the process 
via email (we do need more of that…) and surely the discussion will continue on 
the next legal call, which is tomorrow (hint hint)!

Tom, I’m not entirely clear what you mean by ‘contributions need not be in 
source code form” - which section are you referring to?

Oliver, I can’t remember what time zone you are in, but if you can join the 
call tomorrow, that would be helpful for the discussion, I’m sure.  It’s at 1pm 
ET and the dial-in info is:
Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849
Enter this PIN: 336247
Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio

Cheers,
Jilayne

SPDX

AW: AW: New license request

[Fendt, Oliver]

Hi Phil,

thank you for the feedback. I understand that you want to focus right now on 
Open Source although the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 1.0 and 
following versions as well as Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No 
Derivatives 1.0 and following versions are in the list and which are in my 
opinion _not_ OSD compliant. But I'm not a lawyer.

Regards
Oliver

Von: Philip Odence [mailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:39
An: Fendt, Oliver; Tom Incorvia; Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Betreff: Re: AW: New license request

Oliver,
What you say makes conceptual sense and perhaps we might go there some day 
with the license list. At this point in order to do a good job with the 
resources we have we have decided to say focused on open source, although we 
have let that definition go beyond the 67 or so licenses that the OSI has 
approved. So, your request is a reasonable one.
I will point out, just in case you are not aware, that there is a mechanism in 
the spec for handling licenses that are not on the list. Essentially you can 
create an addendum to the license list locally to the particular SPDX doc and 
in that define other licenses (by including the text) and associated short 
names for use in that SPDX doc.
Phil
L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Corporate and Business Development
Black Duck Software, Inc.
8 New England Executive Park, Suite 211, Burlington MA 01803
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502
Skype: philip.odence
pode...@blackducksoftware.commailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com
http://www.blackducksoftware.comhttp://www.blackducksoftware.com/
http://twitter.com/podence
http://www.linkedin.com/in/podence
http://www.networkworld.com/community/odence (my blog)



From: Fendt, Oliver 
oliver.fe...@siemens.commailto:oliver.fe...@siemens.com
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:17:33 +
To: Tom Incorvia 
tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com, Jilayne 
Lovejoy opensou...@jilayne.commailto:opensou...@jilayne.com
Cc: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.orgmailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org 
spdx-legal@lists.spdx.orgmailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: AW: New license request

Hi Jilayne, hi Tom

Thank you for the feedback.
I will try to make it to be in the telco.

This is a very interesting discussion. From a practical point of view  we need 
a standard to provide license and copyright information of 3rd party software. 
Further it would be wonderful if there is one place where one can find a 
complete collection of (OSS) licenses. It would be great if we can use SPDX one 
day in future for the declaration of 3rd party software no matter whether the 
3rd party software is OSS or not. This would really make live a lot easier. Of 
course I understand that this is part of the open compliance program and not 
part of a 3rd party software compliance program. But  I think that the 
standard is powerful enough to serve both OSS (which is a special case of third 
party software) and other 3rd party software .

Thanks
Oliver
Von: Tom Incorvia [mailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 13:39
An: J Lovejoy
Cc: Fendt, Oliver; SPDX-legal
Betreff: RE: New license request

Hi Jilayne,

Thanks for pointing out the possible flexibility in the license list; Oliver, 
thanks again for taking the time to submit this license.  I'll be on the call 
today - great if you could join us in the discussion.

With regards to the contributions need not be in source code form, I was 
referring to section G: Binary Code Files - The software may include certain 
binary code files for which its source code is not included as part of the 
software, or that are packaged without the source code in an installable or 
executable package. As to these binary code files, unless applicable law gives 
you more rights despite this limitation, you must comply with all technical 
limitations in those files that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You 
may not modify, work around any technical limitations in, or reverse engineer, 
decompile or disassemble these binary code files, except and only to the extent 
that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com; 
O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
From: J Lovejoy [mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:17 PM
To: Tom Incorvia
Cc: Oliver Fendt; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: New license request

Hi Oliver, Tom,

Just to clarify on Tom's points - the normal process is to review based on the 
OSD as a starting point, although for a license to be on the SPDX License List, 
it does not need to strictly adhere to the OSD (see more info here, in 
particular, the bit under Candidate License Analysis 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview)

So, thanks to Oliver for his submission and to Tom for beginning the process 
via

Re: AW: AW: New license request

[Dennis Clark]

Oliver,

As recorded at
http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Considerationthe
SPDX legal working group has decided not to add the MSPPL to the SPDX
License List.

Your request sparked a great deal of discussion about license inclusion
criteria.  I have attempted to summarize the main points as follows:

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.

Thanks for providing the team with a great case to re-examine the current
scope of the SPDX license list, and the emphasis continues to be on open
source licenses in order to make the best use of available SPDX resources.

Regards,
Dennis Clark
dmcl...@nexb.com



On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Fendt, Oliver oliver.fe...@siemens.comwrote:

  Thanks Phil, it would be really great



 *Von:* Philip Odence [mailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com]
 *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:52

 *An:* Fendt, Oliver; Tom Incorvia; Jilayne Lovejoy
 *Cc:* spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
 *Betreff:* Re: AW: AW: New license request



 We have definitely gone beyond the OSI list and even beyond the OSI
 definition, but have tried, for now, to keep it to open source-like
 licenses. See http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview for
 a complete explanation of how we decide to include a license. In my opinion
 the MSPPL is a very reasonable request, not to say we will for sure
 include, but it is worthy of discussion by the legal team.



 *From: *Fendt, Oliver oliver.fe...@siemens.com
 *Date: *Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:45:46 +
 *To: *Phil Odence pode...@blackducksoftware.com, Tom Incorvia 
 tom.incor...@microfocus.com, Jilayne Lovejoy opensou...@jilayne.com
 *Cc: *spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
 *Subject: *AW: AW: New license request



 Hi Phil,



 thank you for the feedback. I understand that you want to focus right now
 on Open Source although the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial
 1.0 and following versions as well as Creative Commons Attribution Non
 Commercial No Derivatives 1.0 and following versions are in the list and
 which are in my opinion _*not*_ OSD compliant. But I'm not a lawyer.



 Regards

 Oliver



 *Von:* Philip Odence 
 [mailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.compode...@blackducksoftware.com]

 *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:39
 *An:* Fendt, Oliver; Tom Incorvia; Jilayne Lovejoy
 *Cc:* spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
 *Betreff:* Re: AW: New license request



 Oliver,

 What you say makes conceptual sense and perhaps we might go there some
 day with the license list. At this point in order to do a good job with the
 resources we have we have decided to say focused on open source, although
 we have let that definition go beyond the 67 or so licenses that the OSI
 has approved. So, your request is a reasonable one.

 I will point out, just in case you are not aware, that there is a
 mechanism in the spec for handling licenses that are not on the list.
 Essentially you can create an addendum to the license list locally to the
 particular SPDX doc and in that define other licenses (by including the
 text) and associated short names for use in that SPDX doc.

 Phil

 *L. Philip Odence*

 Vice President of Corporate and Business Development

 Black Duck Software, Inc.

 8 New England Executive Park, Suite 211, Burlington MA 01803

 Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502

 Skype: philip.odence

 pode...@blackducksoftware.com

 http://www.blackducksoftware.com

 http://twitter.com/podence

 http://www.linkedin.com/in/podence

 http://www.networkworld.com/community/odence (my blog)







 *From: *Fendt, Oliver oliver.fe...@siemens.com
 *Date: *Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:17:33 +
 *To: *Tom Incorvia tom.incor...@microfocus.com, Jilayne Lovejoy 
 opensou...@jilayne.com
 *Cc: *spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
 *Subject: *AW: New license request



 Hi Jilayne, hi Tom



 Thank you for the feedback.

 I will try to make it to be in the telco.



 This is a very interesting discussion. From a practical point of view  we
 need a standard to provide license and copyright information of 3rd party
 software. Further it would be wonderful if there is one place where one can
 find a complete collection of (OSS) licenses. It would be great if we can
 use SPDX one day in future for the declaration of 3rd party software no
 matter whether the 3rd party software is OSS or not. This would really
 make live a lot easier. Of course I understand that this is part of the
 open compliance

New license request

[Fendt, Oliver]

Hi all,

We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX license 
list and I did not find it in the list licenses under consideration,  due to 
this I want to request that it will be included in the SPDX license list.
Please find below the required information for inclusion. The information 
provided by me is marked with [Oliver]

Thanks in advance. Please contact me if there are questions.

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license.
[Oliver] Microsoft patterns  practices License

Provide a proposed License Short Identifier.
 [Oliver]  MSPPL

Provide a functioning URL reference to the license text, either from the 
license author or a community recognized source for the license text.
[Oliver] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx

Create and attach a text file with the license text from the URL provided in 
#3. Proofread license text file to ensure that:
[Oliver]

Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No]
[Oliver] No

Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license to be included 
on the License List, including identifying at least one program that uses this 
license or a prior version of this license.
[Oliver] this license is used quite frequently in the context of the 
programming language C#

Please contact me if you need further information.

Regards

Oliver

Microsoft patterns  practices License


This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, 
you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the 
software.

1. Definitions

The terms reproduce, reproduction, derivative works, and distribution 
have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.

A contribution is the original software, or any additions or changes to the 
software.

A contributor is any person that distributes its contribution under this 
license.

Licensed patents are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its 
contribution.

2. Grant of Rights

(A) Code

* Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license 
conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a 
non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its 
contribution, prepare derivative works of any contribution for which source 
code is provided, and distribute its contribution or any permitted derivative 
works that you create.

* Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license 
conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a 
non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to 
make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of 
its contribution in the software or permitted derivative works of the 
contribution in the software.

(B) Documentation

* Documentation is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0, a 
copy of which is attached below, and not by the other terms of this Microsoft 
patterns  practices license.

3. Conditions and Limitations

(A) No Trademark License - This license does not grant you rights to use any 
contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.

(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you 
claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor 
to the software ends automatically.

(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all 
copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the 
software.

(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may 
do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with 
your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or 
object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this 
license.

(E) The software is licensed as-is. You bear the risk of using it. The 
contributors give no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have 
additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot 
change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude 
the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and 
non-infringement.

(F) Platform Limitation - The licenses granted in section 2(A) extend only to 
the software or permitted derivative works that you create that run directly on 
a Microsoft Windows operating system product, Microsoft run-time technology 
(such as the .NET Framework or Silverlight), or Microsoft application platform 
(such as Microsoft Office or Microsoft Dynamics).

(G) Binary Code Files - The software may include certain binary code files for 
which its source code is not included as part of the software, or that are 
packaged without the source code in an installable or executable package. As to 
these binary code files, unless applicable law gives you more rights despite 
this limitation, you must 

Re: New License Request

[Mike Milinkovich]

  
  
On 05/03/2014 11:56 AM, J Lovejoy
  wrote:

If you have any other questions, please do not
  hesitate to ask!

That's fine. "BSD-3-Clause" is a perfectly good answer.

Thanks everyone for all the help!

-- 
  Mike Milinkovich
  mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
  +1.613.220.3223
  
   
  
  

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

RE: New license request

[Tom Incorvia]

Hello Fendt,

I have been out of the SPDX mix for a while, but I believe that this license 
would not be considered an open source license based on the OSI 
criteriahttp://opensource.org/osd-annotated - this license is used by 
Microsoft for certain free distributions (for instance, the Microsoft Parallel 
Computing Platform).  However, these distributions have restrictions:


-  Contributions need not be in source code form

-  The license grants are limited to Microsoft platforms

-  Reverse engineering of binary files is prohibited (except where 
local law expressly permits)

I worked with SPDX for several years, and contributions like this are valued.  
If you are interested in contributing as a team member, please communicate with 
Philip Odence 
pode...@blackducksoftware.commailto:pode...@blackducksoftware.com, to 
determine which team would be the best fit - we are always looking for 
individuals who are involved in licensing.

Thanks,

Tom Incorvia
Tom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.commailto:tom.incor...@microfocus.com; 
O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Fendt, Oliver
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:31 AM
To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
Subject: New license request

Hi all,

We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX license 
list and I did not find it in the list licenses under consideration,  due to 
this I want to request that it will be included in the SPDX license list.
Please find below the required information for inclusion. The information 
provided by me is marked with [Oliver]

Thanks in advance. Please contact me if there are questions.

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license.
[Oliver] Microsoft patterns  practices License

Provide a proposed License Short Identifier.
[Oliver]  MSPPL

Provide a functioning URL reference to the license text, either from the 
license author or a community recognized source for the license text.
[Oliver] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx

Create and attach a text file with the license text from the URL provided in 
#3. Proofread license text file to ensure that:
[Oliver]

Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No]
[Oliver] No

Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license to be included 
on the License List, including identifying at least one program that uses this 
license or a prior version of this license.
[Oliver] this license is used quite frequently in the context of the 
programming language C#

Please contact me if you need further information.

Regards

Oliver



Click herehttps://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MZbqvYs5QwJvpeaetUwhCQ== to report 
this email as spam.


This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New license request

[J Lovejoy]

Hi Oliver, Tom,

Just to clarify on Tom’s points - the normal process is to review based on the 
OSD as a starting point, although for a license to be on the SPDX License List, 
it does not need to strictly adhere to the OSD (see more info here, in 
particular, the bit under “Candidate License Analysis” 
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview)

So, thanks to Oliver for his submission and to Tom for beginning the process 
via email (we do need more of that…) and surely the discussion will continue on 
the next legal call, which is tomorrow (hint hint)!

Tom, I’m not entirely clear what you mean by ‘contributions need not be in 
source code form” - which section are you referring to?

Oliver, I can’t remember what time zone you are in, but if you can join the 
call tomorrow, that would be helpful for the discussion, I’m sure.  It’s at 1pm 
ET and the dial-in info is:
Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849 
Enter this PIN: 336247 
Alternative Numbers: http://www.yuuguu.com/audio

Cheers,
Jilayne

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


On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tom Incorvia tom.incor...@microfocus.com wrote:

 Hello Fendt,
  
 I have been out of the SPDX mix for a while, but I believe that this license 
 would not be considered an open source license based on theOSI criteria – 
 this license is used by Microsoft for certain free distributions (for 
 instance, the Microsoft Parallel Computing Platform).  However, these 
 distributions have restrictions:
  
 -  Contributions need not be in source code form
 -  The license grants are limited to Microsoft platforms
 -  Reverse engineering of binary files is prohibited (except where 
 local law expressly permits)
  
 I worked with SPDX for several years, and contributions like this are valued. 
  If you are interested in contributing as a team member, please communicate 
 with Philip Odence pode...@blackducksoftware.com, to determine which team 
 would be the best fit – we are always looking for individuals who are 
 involved in licensing.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Tom Incorvia
 Tom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.com; O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 
 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015
 From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
 [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Fendt, Oliver
 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:31 AM
 To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
 Subject: New license request
  
 Hi all,
  
 We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX license 
 list and I did not find it in the list “licenses under consideration”,  due 
 to this I want to request that it will be included in the SPDX license list.
 Please find below the required information for inclusion. The information 
 provided by me is marked with “[Oliver]”
  
 Thanks in advance. Please contact me if there are questions.
  
 Provide a proposed Full Name for the license.
 [Oliver] Microsoft patterns  practices License
  
 Provide a proposed License Short Identifier.
 [Oliver]  MSPPL
  
 Provide a functioning URL reference to the license text, either from the 
 license author or a community recognized source for the license text.
 [Oliver] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg405489(v=pandp.40).aspx
  
 Create and attach a text file with the license text from the URL provided in 
 #3. Proofread license text file to ensure that:
 [Oliver]

 Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No]
 [Oliver] No

 Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license to be 
 included on the License List, including identifying at least one program that 
 uses this license or a prior version of this license.
 [Oliver] this license is used quite frequently in the context of the 
 programming language C#
  
 Please contact me if you need further information.
  
 Regards
  
 Oliver
  
  
 
 Click here to report this email as spam.
 
 
 
 This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com
 
 ___
 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 request

[Dennis Clark]

Oliver, Legal Team,

New license request added to
http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Consideration


Regards,
Dennis Clark


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Fendt, Oliver oliver.fe...@siemens.comwrote:

  Hi all,

 We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX
 license list and I did not find it in the list licenses under
 consideration,  so I want to request that it will be included in the SPDX
 license list.
 Please find below the required information for inclusion. The information
 provided by me is marked with [Oliver]

 Thanks in advance. Please contact me if there are questions.


 1. Provide a proposed Full Name for the license.

 [Oliver] Bzip2 License


 1. Provide a proposed License Short Identifier.
2. [Oliver]  Bzip2
3. Provide a functioning URL reference to the license text, either
from the license author or a community recognized source for the license
text.

 [Oliver] http://bzip.org/1.0.5/bzip2-manual-1.0.5.html


 1. Create and attach a text file with the license text from the URL
provided in #3. Proofread license text file to ensure that:

 [Oliver]


 1.
2.


 1. Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No]
2. [Oliver] No
3.
4. Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license to
be included on the License List, including identifying at least one program
that uses this license or a prior version of this license.
5. [Oliver] bzip2 is a popular package and often used, thus an entry
in the spdx license list would make life easier.



 Best regards

 Oliver Fendt

 Siemens AG
 Corporate Technology
 Corporate Standards  Guidance
 CT CSG SWI OSS
 Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
 81739 München, Deutschland
 Tel: +49 89 636-46033
 Fax: +49  89  636-48100
 *mailto:oliver.fe...@siemens.com* oliver.fe...@siemens.com

 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Gerhard
 Cromme; Vorstand: Joe Kaeser, Vorsitzender; Roland Busch, Klaus Helmrich,
 Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen, Michael Süß, Ralf
 P. Thomas; Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin und München, Deutschland;
 Registergericht: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, München, HRB 6684;
 WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 23691322




 ___
 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 Request

[Chitale, Supriya IN PUN STS]

Hello,

I would like to submit a new license request. The information is given below:


1.   Full Name for the license: Artistic License (Perl) 1.0

2.   Proposed License Short Identifier: Artistic-Perl-1.0

3.   URL reference to the license text: 
http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html

4.   Yes - the license is not OSI-approved

A formatted text file with the license text from the URL provided in #3 has 
been attached with this e-mail.

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.


Warm regards,
Supriya



Supriya Chitale
Design  Development Engineer
Software Clearing Team Lead

Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd.
Building Technologies Division
RMZ Westend, Aundh,
Pune - 411007, India
Tel: +91 830 819 5830

The Artistic License

Preamble

The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a Package 
may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some semblance of 
artistic control over the development of the package, while giving the users of 
the package the right to use and distribute the Package in a more-or-less 
customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications.

Definitions:

Package refers to the collection of files distributed by the Copyright 
Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created through textual 
modification.

Standard Version refers to such a Package if it has not been modified, or has 
been modified in accordance with the wishes of the Copyright Holder as 
specified below.

Copyright Holder is whoever is named in the copyright or copyrights for the 
package.

You is you, if you're thinking about copying or distributing this Package.

Reasonable copying fee is whatever you can justify on the basis of media 
cost, duplication charges, time of people involved,  and so on.  (You will not 
be required to justify it to the  Copyright Holder, but only to the 
computing community at large  as a market that must bear the fee.)

Freely Available means that no fee is charged for the item itself, though 
there may be fees involved in handling the item. It also means that recipients 
of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they received it.

1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the 
Standard Version of this Package without restriction, provided that you 
duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers.

2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived 
from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder.  A Package modified in 
such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version.

3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided that 
you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you 
changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following:

a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them 
Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an 
equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site such as 
uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications 
in the Standard Version of the Package.

b) use the modified Package only within your corporation or organization.

c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict with 
standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a separate 
manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly documents how it 
differs from the Standard Version.

d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.

4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or executable 
form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:

a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files, 
together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where to get 
the Standard Version.

b) accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of the 
Package with your modifications.

c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly document 
the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together with instructions on 
where to get the Standard Version.

d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.

5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this 
Package.  You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package.  You 
may not charge a fee for this Package itself.  However, you may distribute this 
Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a 
larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do

RE: New License Request

[Tom Incorvia]

Hello Till,

Thanks for being engaged. 

One of the principles of the SPDX license list is that there is a reliable 
short identifier, full name and exact text match (other than white space and 
some agreed upon English spelling variations) for each license -- that is what 
lets the short identifier be powerful.

Jilayne, let's get on the agenda for the next SPDX Legal teleconference -- my 
thinking is that this should be represented as 2 different licenses, with a 
-English or -German suffix.  

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Incorvia
tom.incor...@microfocus.com
Direct: (512) 340-1336
Mobile: (408) 499 6850
-Original Message-
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org 
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Till Jaeger
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:09 AM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: New License Request

Hi Jilayne,

Thanks for your quick evaluation. Just one more question. The license exists in 
a German and an English version. Both are binding next to each other (we took 
that system from international treaties). Do you want to link a file with both 
texts or just one of them?

Best,

Till


Am 28.02.2013 21:50, schrieb Jilayne Lovejoy:
 Hi Till,
 
 The German Free Software License has been approved by the SPDX Legal 
 Team for addition to the SPDX License List.  Protocol states that we 
 give two weeks for any other objection so that anyone not on the call 
 has a chance to weigh in.  If there is no further feedback given, the 
 license will be added and appear on the next official release of the 
 SPDX License List, which will most likely occur at the end of March or early 
 April.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Jilayne Lovejoy
 SPDX Legal Team co-lead
 
 
 
 
 On 2/27/13 2:22 AM, Till Jaeger jae...@jbb.de wrote:
 
 Julayne,

 Good to hear. Thanks a lot!

 Best,
 Till

 Am 26.02.2013 17:51, schrieb Jilayne Lovejoy:
 Thanks Till!

 We will begin review of this license on the next SPDX Legal call, 
 which is this Thursday.

 Cheers,

 Jilayne Lovejoy
 SPDX Legal Team co-lead
 Corporate Counsel | OpenLogic, Inc.
 jlove...@openlogic.com  |  720 240 4545




 On 2/25/13 11:10 AM, Till Jaeger jae...@jbb.de wrote:

 Dear Ladies and Gentleman,

 Please find all information in the attached files 8and below).

 1. German Free Software License
 2. D-FSL-1.0
 3. 
 http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/index_html/lizenzen/en/D-FSL-1_0_en.tx
 t 
 http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/index_html/lizenzen/de/D-FSL-1_0_de.tx
 t (see http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/lizenzen/ for other formats) 4. 
 attached 5.
 6. It was created for and is backed by a German state. See 
 http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/nutzer/ for a list of users.
 7.
 Copyright (C) 20[yy] [Name of the Entitled Person].
 This Program may be used by anyone in accordance with the terms of 
 the German Free Software License.
 The License may be obtained under http://www.d-fsl.org.


 If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

 Best regards,

 Till Jaeger

 --


 ___
 _
 _

 Institut für Rechtsfragen der Freien und Open Source Software (ifrOSS)
Bredowstraße 3 | 10551 Berlin
Tel.: +49.30.443 765 0 | www.ifross.org
Dr. Till Jaeger

 ___
 _
 _




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

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
__

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal

Re: New License Request

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Thanks Till!

We will begin review of this license on the next SPDX Legal call, which is
this Thursday.

Cheers,

Jilayne Lovejoy
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
Corporate Counsel | OpenLogic, Inc.
jlove...@openlogic.com  |  720 240 4545




On 2/25/13 11:10 AM, Till Jaeger jae...@jbb.de wrote:

Dear Ladies and Gentleman,

Please find all information in the attached files 8and below).

1. German Free Software License
2. D-FSL-1.0
3. http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/index_html/lizenzen/en/D-FSL-1_0_en.txt
http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/index_html/lizenzen/de/D-FSL-1_0_de.txt
(see http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/lizenzen/ for other formats)
4. attached
5.
6. It was created for and is backed by a German state. See
http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/nutzer/ for a list of users.
7.
Copyright (C) 20[yy] [Name of the Entitled Person].
This Program may be used by anyone in accordance with the terms of the
German Free Software License.
The License may be obtained under http://www.d-fsl.org.


If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Till Jaeger

--

_

Institut für Rechtsfragen der Freien und Open Source Software (ifrOSS)
   Bredowstraße 3 | 10551 Berlin
   Tel.: +49.30.443 765 0 | www.ifross.org
   Dr. Till Jaeger
_


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