On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:24:34PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > > The OSI recently approved three licenses as Open Source: > > > > 1) eCos License version 2.0 (under the 'Legacy Approval' process) > > Text of approved license contained within: > > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html > > > > Note that the interesting part of this license is identical to > > http://spdx.org/licenses/eCos-exception-2.0.html#licenseExceptionText > > The short identifier is already defined for SPDX using the “with” operator > and the exception identifier. It would be: > > GPL-2.0+ WITH eCos-exception-2.0
Ah, okay. That makes sense. The only issue is that for some time there has been a desire for the URLs for licenses on the OSI website to match the SPDX short identifier. I think we will probably use 'eCos' for the URL rather than 'GPL-2.0+ WITH eCos-exception-2.0' and to that extent we will have to change the current practice of honoring the SPDX identifiers. > Unless anyone thinks otherwise, I would think that license expression could > be noted on the OSI site in the same way the other SPDX identifiers are?? I believe what's currently done is that the SPDX identifier is used in two contexts, in the general list of OSI-approved licenses and in the URLs. I don't see a problem with using 'GPL-2.0+ WITH eCos-exception-2.0' in the list but as noted I think it would be problematic to use it in the URL. > This does raise for us the question as to whether we need to add an “OSI > Approved” column to the exceptions list. To my knowledge, this is the only > GPL exception that has been specifically approved by OSI, is that right? There is one other, the wxWindows Library License: http://opensource.org/licenses/WXwindows Not to mention LGPL version 3. > > 2) Free Public License 1.0.0 > > Text of approved license contained within: > > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-August/001104.html > > We have added as of v2.2 - http://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html - although it > was submitted using a different name as suggested by the submitter (who I > think said he authored the license… or at least seemed to know a lot about > it’s origins and the suggested name, which we went with - see > http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-June/001443.html for that > thread). > > Would the OSI oppose the name we already went with?? Hmm, I think this is really a case of two people independently inventing approximately the same thing at about the same time, where 'invention' means removing some language from an existing short license. The one possible textual difference is that the Free Public License does not normatively contain a copyright notice (at least, in the discussion on the license-review list, it seemed to be assumed that the license would be used without a copyright notice, and no actual or template copyright notice was part of the text submitted by the license submitter). I can't see OSI wanting to identify this as '0BSD', in part because it is not actually based directly on the BSD license contrary to what Rob Landley seemed to be saying. I mean, I personally would be opposed to OSI referring to this as '0BSD' because I think it can only possibly be confusing. And this license is actually a relatively important one as it fills a significant gap in the policy range of OSI-approved licenses. So with all respect to Mr. Landley I would like to ask the SPDX group to consider changing '0BSD' to 'FPL' (if that's available) or else something closer to 'Free Public License'. (From the SPDX perspective, I gather the presence or absence of the copyright notice at the top does not affect whether it is treated as the same license? Unlike the current situation with the BSD or MIT or ISC licenses, when the Free Public License is published on the OSI website there will not be a template copyright notice.) > > 3) OSET Foundation Public License version 2.1 > > We don't quite have a canonical license document here yet (the license > > that was approved was a conceptually-typo-corrected version of a > > redline document). > > Great - we’ll need the license text - do you want to just let us know when > you have the final version? Sure, I'll have that ready soon. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
