On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 01:38:49AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> "Artistic-1.0": {
> "osi": {
> "id": "Artistic-1.0",
> "tags": [
> "osi-approved",
> "discouraged",
> "obsolete"
> ]
> },
> "fsf": {
> "id": "ArtisticLicense",
> "tags": [
> "non-free"
> ]
> }
> },
> …
> "NASA-1.3": {
> "osi": {
> "id": "NASA-1.3",
> "tags": [
> "osi-approved",
> "special-purpose"
> ]
> },
> "fsf": {
> "id": "NASA",
> "tags": [
> "non-free"
> ]
> }
> },
> …
> "Watcom-1.0": {
> "osi": {
> "id": "Watcom-1.0",
> "tags": [
> "discouraged",
> "non-reusable",
> "osi-approved"
> ]
> },
> "fsf": {
> "id": "Watcom",
> "tags": [
> "non-free"
> ]
> }
> },These are currently the only open/non-free disagreements. The other entries in my previous post were all “known to one list, but not known to either SPDX or the other list”. FSF notes on these three are in [1,2,3]. Presumably there are also licenses that the OSI has considered but rejected. However, the OSI API [4] does not currently record rejections (i.e. all of the licenses in the OSI API [5] have the ‘osi-approved’ keyword). I've filed [6] in case the OSI API maintainers want to address that. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NASA [3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom [4]: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses [5]: https://api.opensource.org/licenses/ [6]: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses/issues/58 -- 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-tech mailing list Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
