J Lovejoy: > 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.
I agree, I think something like "BSD-2-Clause-Patent" would be the better choice: * It's more consistent with the other licenses * All the existing tools can handle that, even if they can only handle identifiers (not expressions) * Using "-with-" is hard to distinguish from the operator "... WITH ..." when spoken * Using "...plus..." is hard to distinguish from terminating "+" when spoken I hope that SPDX & OSI will agree on a short name, too...! --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
