As I've been following the issue queue for github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues over the past several months, it seems to me that you get a significant number of license submissions like this latest one: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1790
The pattern is, someone has drafted their own license, it either isn't being used at all in the real world or it is being used for a few insignificant projects of the license author. In some cases the license seems to be connected to some contemplated commercial activity of the license submitter. Presumably SPDX license list inclusion is seen as a way of legitimizing or popularizing the novel license. I am quite familiar with this sort of phenomenon from my past involvement with the OSI, where the nature of the OSI process as it was historically defined seemed to unintentionally result in many license submissions of this sort. When I look at the SPDX license inclusion guidelines, I am concerned that this sort of behavior is not sufficiently discouraged. The guidelines say "The license has actual, substantial use such that it is likely to be encountered. Substantial use may be demonstrated via use in many projects, or in one or a few significant projects. For new licenses, there are definitive plans for the license to be used in one or a few significant projects." But this is not one of the "definitive" factors and it is the third of a list of non-definitive factors that are given "roughly in order of importance". Someone might understandably conclude that "substantial use" isn't too important to SPDX. My main criticism of the SPDX license list from years ago was that it was not representative of the makeup of the FOSS project world that I was seeing in Linux distribution packages and other software I encountered in my work. I have been engaged in trying to get the SPDX license list to more accurately reflect the state of widely-used FOSS today and it is frustrating to see repeated examples of vanity license submissions. I suggest that the license inclusion principles should be revised to elevate and perhaps strengthen the "substantial use" requirement and the maintainers of license-list-XML should more actively make clear that such licenses are generally inappropriate for the SPDX license list. Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3306): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3306 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/96510436/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
