Thank you for this valuable information, Philippe. I will pursue your advice. Thank you all for your time. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas <jhab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX License > List. > > I am but I small Fish in a large pond. > > Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards. > > Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received > adoption first. The purpose of the list is not to bless new licenses > but to provide a shorthand for common, adopted licenses [1]: > > The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and > exceptions > used for open source and other collaborative software. > > The key word here is "commonly".... And this is further developed on > the same page. > If you want a new license to be "open source"-approved, you should > contact the OSI instead. > > > The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple permissive > > canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto wallet > > addresses as mentioned in the Hacker Noon article. > > > > Ideally we can avoid license proliferation here but I need to have a new > > template accepted for the copyright statement to show the proper way to > use > > it. Will that necessitate the creation of a unique new license text, or > can > > this be done creatively without causing a new license in terms? > > A copyright statement is a copyright statement , a license text is a > license text. > As much as you would like these two to be conflated in one, this is > not the way things work as stated by posts in this thread. > > I think you have received a lot of valuable feedback and push back > here on your idea. > > So go ahead and submit your new license idea at the OSI if you feel > like it, though I consider this a terribly bad idea to submit a new > text and this will unlikely help your new license to receive any > adoption. Since there is really nothing novel, and you are eventually > considering creating a new license text just for the purpose of having > something different I doubt this would receive much consideration > there too. > > You want to define a new way to use copyright statements creatively. > So promote this but mixing this up with license texts and asking for a > unique identifier does not make sense to me and to most on this list. > There is not much more to say. > > [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview > -- > Cordially > Philippe Ombredanne >
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
