On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 11:01:03AM -0800, Dennis Clark wrote: > Others may disagree (naturally) but I think the license notice > matches the SPDX "Apache-1.1" license.
There are numerous differences vs. our Apache-1.1 template. For example, the JNIC license [1] does not include Apache-1.1's “Products derived from this software may not be called…” language [2]. And the JNIC license does not include Sendmail's “Redistributions qualify as "freeware" or…” language [3]. So if we want to treat this as equivalent to existing license, we'd need to adjust the templates. Sendmail is our only license with “Use, Modification and Redistribution”, so I agree with Wilcox that Sendmail is probably the best choice if we decide to expand an existing template to cover the JNIC wording. And regardless of semantic similarity, I think that there are enough wording differences that it would probably be easiest/safest to mint a new license identifier. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://source.isc.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=bind9.git;a=blob;f=COPYRIGHT;h=3dffc132959d260ed8ed92d0d794a231b5447595;hb=HEAD#l364 [2]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/v3.0/src/Apache-1.1.xml#L50-L55 [3]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/v3.0/src/Sendmail.xml#L22-L23 -- 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
