I agree with Jilayne, and this is also the reason I’d prefer to avoid the “with” even in the long license title.
Of course, McCoy has also written some “pluggable” patent wording that could be combined with other licenses in theory. If he wants to submit it to SPDX, maybe this could be an “exception” (non-OSI approved, obviously). -- zvr – From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy Sent: Thursday, 1 June, 2017 19:39 To: W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> Cc: Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com>; SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Subject: Re: New OSI approved license (BSD+Patent) Hi Trevor, This would not be treated as an exception because it was drafted (and submitted to the OSI) as a complete license, not as an exception or separate, add-able text to BSD-2-Clause. While you raise a good point about the potential different ways one might express such a situation as this, I think we need to generally ‘take them as we find them’ and no re-interpret the intent of the (license) author. That being said, we probably need to actually define what an exception is, as I think is understood concept but not actually spelled out anywhere (on the SPDX License List or possible elsewhere!) As for an identifier, there is no reason to use “OSI” in the identifier - we have all of the OSI-approved licenses included on the SPDX License List. The short identifier should follow the general guidelines we provide for here: https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview (see bottom), which are in key part: • Short identifiers have no spaces in them • Short identifiers consist of an abbreviation based on a common short name or acronym for the license or exception • Where applicable, the abbreviation will be followed by a dash and then the version number, in X.Y format • Where applicable, and if possible, the short identifier should be harmonized with other well-known open source naming sources (i.e., OSI, Fedora, etc.) • Short identifiers should be as short in length as possible while staying consistent with all other naming criteria Specifically, when adding other BSD-x-Clause licenses, we have tried to follow the same pattern for the identifiers as it aids in identifying what exactly the license is, which I think everyone finds helpful! Hence the use of BSD-x-Clause-<extra> was intentional and thus, why I suggested such a pattern here. I suppose we could add a more generalized note to that effect in the guidelines as well. thanks, Jilayne On Jun 1, 2017, at 11:23 AM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us<mailto:wk...@tremily.us>> wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:57PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: Following our existing pattern for variations on BSD (listed below for reference), we might want to consider: Full name: BSD 2-clause plus Patent (could also be BSD 2-Clause with Patent - as the use of with in the full name is not problematic, although arguably not ideal either) Short Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent Since most of the text is the same as the current BSD-2-Clause [1], you could put the grant (“Subject to the terms and conditions of this license… estoppel or otherwise.”) in a license exception (and maybe generalize “exception”?) and users could use: BSD-2-Clause WITH BSD-Patent or whatever if there's a better identifier for the patent grant (who wrote it? Maybe it should be OSI-Patent?). I'm not sure if there's a clear policy for whether a new license that only adds text to an existing license should be a new SPDX license or a new SPDX exception, but it's probably worth documenting some guidelines if there is such a policy. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html -- 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 Intel Deutschland GmbH Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office: Munich Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
