re-sending, as SPDX-legal failed to get in to line on last try :)
> On May 31, 2017, at 9:57 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks - I’d actually been meaning to email you and McCoy (as the author) on
> this one.
>
> Following our existing pattern for variations on BSD (listed belo
Hi All,
As related to the topic of how to treat non-English licenses and translations,
especially in regard to matching and short identifiers: I have now collected
some of the proposals and comments from the General mailing list (thanks
Karsten!), some general info, a link to the slides presen
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
Hi spdx-legal,
The OSI recently approved a license called "BSD+Patent" which I would
like to propose as an addition to the SPDX license list.
https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent
IIUC "+" can't be used in an SPDX short license identifier - in that
case I'd recommend "BSDplusPatent" unle
Hi Julien,
Ah, well, good spot; you are right, these are the same licenses.
I trudged back in the archives and looks like Nunit was added in version 1.17
and zlib-acknowledgment is tagged (in the spreadsheet tracking) as added in
version 2.4, but I don’t think that is correct as I seem to recal
