https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/689#issuecomment-423262092 (about a non-open-source BSD variant):
discussed on Sept 20 call: as per the license inclusion guidelines at > https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview : "...any > license that is a candidate for inclusion on the SPDX License List must > have the general attributes of an "open source" license." > So, we won't add this. But note that you can still adopt SPDX! (and we > think it's great that you want to!) - in this case, I'd recommend using the > LicenseRef option (see section 6 here: > https://spdx.org/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/spdxversion2.1.pdf > I did not know license list candidates must have the general attributes of an "open source" license, but I'm glad to learn of the requirement. I wonder how the CC NC and ND licenses made it through (I searched the list archives a bit and didn't come up with anything, probably due to my own lack of search savvy or persistence), and whether those identifiers should be deprecated? Mostly this is idle curiosity on my part, please ignore if annoying. I can live with incongruity. :) Mike -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2384): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2384 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/26425511/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
