Is the final formal SPDX name for React, etc., going to be "BSD-2-Clause-Patent"? That's what is listed here: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent
Thanks. --- David A. Wheeler > -----Original Message----- > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal- > boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 1:27 PM > To: J Lovejoy > Cc: McCoy Smith; SPDX-legal > Subject: Re: Your license: full name and identifier > > I created a redirect so that now both > https://opensource.org/BSDplusPatent and https://opensource.org/BSD-2- > Clause-Patent both go to https://opensource.org/node/865/ (or something > functionally equivalent to that). > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:45:22PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > > Richard, > > > > Can you update the OSI URL to the short identifier - I see it got added in > > the > parenthetical, but the URL did not get updated as per usual process. > > https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent > > <https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent> > > > > Jilayne > > > > SPDX Legal Team co-lead > > opensou...@jilayne.com > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Richard Fontana > <font...@opensource.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jilayne, > > > > > > Short identifier, yes - I will make those changes shortly. OSI has > > > not been attempting to track the SPDX full names and has not been > > > trying to replace the OSI-used names with SPDX full names, for > > > example in listings of licenses or headings of license pages. > > > > > > In most cases I think the SPDX full name is either the same as the > > > OSI-used name or is substantially the same. But, unlike the > > > situation for the short identifiers which have been somewhat > > > successful, I do not see any signs of a community or industry > > > tendency to adopt the SPDX full names. In a few cases I think the > > > full name used by SPDX would be impractical or confusing for OSI to > > > use, and in a few cases I consider the SPDX full name to be wrong > > > (for example, the name does not match the name of the license that > > > is officially noted in the canonical license text). Anyway, I don't > > > particularly see a benefit in non-SPDX adoption of the SPDX full names. > > > > > > I assumed McCoy was not requesting that the OSI change "BSD+Patent" > > > to the SPDX full name for OSI purposes. I would recommend against > > > this for reasons I've already stated -- most importantly I think > > > "BSD+Patent" is a better name than " BSD-2-Clause plus Patent > > > License", and "BSD-2-Clause" is not yet a standard *full* name for > > > the 2-clause BSD license in the open source community. But if McCoy > > > wants to change the OSI name of BSD+Patent he can request that by > > > contacting the OSI or through license-review. > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:02:52AM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote: > > >> Thanks McCoy! We’ll get this on the SPDX License List for the next > release. I trust OSI will update their page with the short identifier and > full > name accordingly as well. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Jilayne > > >> > > >> SPDX Legal Team co-lead > > >> opensou...@jilayne.com > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jun 19, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> All: > > >>> > > >>> After some back and forth with Jilayne, we believe the best naming > approach (for SPDX purposes) from the “BSD+Patent > <https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent>” license recently added to > the OSI list to be: > > >>> > > >>> Full name: BSD-2-Clause plus Patent License > > >>> > > >>> SPDX Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent > > >>> > > >>> [Note there is something that Facebook is using that they have recently > started calling “ <>BSD+Patents > <https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556>” but this isn’t on the > OSI list nor is it a fully intact license, but a BSD 3-clause with a separate > additional patent grant found elsewhere; I’m not sure how SPDX might (or > has) handled that although I think you treat additional grants appended to > existing OSI licenses differently]. > > >>> > > >>> This approach is most consistent with naming conventions used by > SPDX and OSI, and keeping in mind concerns about using special characters > (“+”) in certain contexts in which mechanical/computerized review is used. > > >>> > > >>> Let me know if you have any questions on this. > > >>> > > >>> McCoy Smith > > >>> Intel Corporation > > >>> Law & Policy Group > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Spdx-legal mailing list > > >>> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org <mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> > > >>> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal > > >>> <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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
