J> Hi Daniel,
J> I’m not seeing this error. Looks right on both the current license list and the preview for 2.0-rc2 at http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/ <http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/>

Sorry I wasn't very clear.

If we templetize the BSD-2-clauses, then the BSD-2-Clause-NetBSD is an
instance of this template. In other words, the variable sections of the
template have been filled with the NetBSD Foundation.

The current license BSD-2-clauses http://spdx.org/licenses/preview/ is
not the template.

--dmg


J> ??

J> thanks,
J> Jilayne


J> SPDX Legal Team co-lead
J> opensource@...


>> On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, dmg <dmg@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:31 PM, J Lovejoy <opensource@... <mailto:opensource@...>> wrote:
>> I think Daniel is suggesting “synonyms” for license identification, especially in light of the change from the “old” SPDX License List, which is somewhat static to use of the new License Expression Syntax with the release of version 2.0.
>>
>>
>> Talking about "synonyms". Today I discovered that the BSD-2-Clause-NetBSD is identical to the BSD-2-Clause (the template has been filled with the NetBSD Foundation).
>>
>> --dmg
>>


--
Daniel M. German "I try to tell stories that seem
Donald Knuth -> to be important, at least for geeks."
http://turingmachine.org/
http://silvernegative.com/
dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .