Should "Exceptions" include "additional restrictions"?

It seems that the question this thread is now asking is: Is SPDX willing to accept on its Exceptions List conditions that add additional restrictions on the main license? For example, while the Sleepycat license is actually listed separately in SPDX , und

Re: Should "Exceptions" include "additional restrictions"?

+++ Bradley M. Kuhn [Mon, 10 Jul 2017 at 15:56:09]: This proposal would change the nature of the Exceptions list to be a more general "additional permissions *or* restrictions" list. If that's where SPDX wants to go, then we should go further and rename the list entirely. IMO, that approach may

Re: Should "Exceptions" include "additional restrictions"?

I fear identifying add-on terms as "exceptions" would lead to a great many retroactive identification requests, driven more by a desire to describe inadvertently contaminated terms for existing software within SPDX-compliant systems than to identify standard language reused across projects. Sometim