Hi Richard, I think you may have spotted a place where the “replaceable” markup is too narrow, but let me make sure I have this right:
the third clause, in full states: 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. We have “the copyright holder” as the text which can be replaced and still be a match. In other words, if it said: 3. Neither the name of JilayneCo nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. it would be a match. But in reality, you might also see (using strikethrough and blue text to highlight differences): 3. Neither the name of JilayneCo nor the names of its contributors may not be used... or even, 3. Neither the name of JilayneCo nor the names of its contributors may be used... I think you are correct that this should be a match, but the markup does not sufficiently allow for such changes. We have a legal call on Thursday (at 11am Man time), so this is a good topic to discuss then! As for the disclaimer, I think it works either way… for example: 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 HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE ... could be a match also if it instead said: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY RICHARD "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 RICHARD BE LIABLE … or, it would equally be a match if it said: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY RICHARD 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 RICHARD OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE ... But let me know if I’m missing something here. thanks, Jilayne > On Mar 31, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I've noticed that a very common variant of what I think of as the 3-clause > BSD license has this as its third clause: > > 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote > products derived from this software without specific prior > written permission. > > Am I right that such a license, otherwise matching[1] what SPDX calls > 'BSD-3-Clause', would not be considered a match to 'BSD-3-Clause' because > clause 3 does not say 'Neither the name of the author nor the name of its > contributors...'? > > Asking because this seems to be the case from a strict reading of the SPDX > matching guidelines, yet the result also seems to violate its spirit. > > Richard > > [1]The non-use of 'contributors' results in changes to the stock disclaimer > language too. I don't think it is clear whether this too would result in a > non-match under the SPDX guidelines. > _______________________________________________ > 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
