Dear legal eagles: I just saw that the request to have a proper SPDX license id for the Kernel enforcement statement has been closed [1]. I guess I should have followed the discussion that happened late last year since I started this on list way back when [2]...
I am looking at all the non-SPDX licenses detected in the kernel to submit them for addition and I am not clear why this would be rejected: this text is detected alright when you scan the kernel and has been for a long while (at least by ScanCode). And the same applies to the GPL-CC [3]. IMHO as a license compliance toolsmith, if this is something licensing-related, then it should be detected. It it is detected and is in common enough, then it should have a name/id. 1. Do such statements/commitments texts are worthy of detection by a license scanner? I think so. Otherwise, why would they exist? 2. Are they common enough? Beyond the kernel, there is a growing number of projects and companies adopting these [4] [5] and is even suggested by GitHub's choosealicence [6], so I would say yes. What is wrong with this reasoning? Could someone explain to me in simple terms why not including these in the list? Thank you ++ for your help! [1] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/655 [2] https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2083 [3] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/714 [4] https://github.com/PHPMailer/PHPMailer#license [5] https://github.com/jboss-set/eap-additional-testsuite/blob/99571420357fe1353f3f2bc994986f03f5661751/Runtimes/ACTIVEMQ/README.md#license [6] https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/blob/gh-pages/_includes/sidebar.html#L29 -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2570): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2570 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/30439307/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
