HI All,

Having a bit of a hard time following this, as I think Rob may have confused who was speaking on which organization’s behalf (Richard is coming from the OSI perspective, here)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the suggestion seems to be:

OSI has now posted the "Free Public License 1.0.0" and wants to use the short identifier FPL-1.0.0

This license is, according to the SPDX Matching Guidelines, the same license the Rob submitted previously and which was added to SPDX License List v2.2 as "BSD Zero Clause License” using the short identifier 0BSD

Now, the OSI wants SPDX to change its short identifier to FPL-1.0.0 - is that right? And if so, why would you want us to do that?

We endeavor not to change the short identifiers unless there is an extremely compelling reason and users of the SPDX License List (of which there are many) rely on us to not make such changes unnecessarily. I’m not sure I see the compelling reason here, especially when, as Rob has now told us, part of the reason he submitted the license to be on the SPDX License List was as per the request of a large company using the SPDX short identifiers.

We do have some flexibility with the full name, which would be reasonably to change to something like, "BSD Zero Clause / Free Public License 1.0.0” (clunky, perhaps) and then also add a note as Richard did explaining the similarity-yet-name-variation-possibility. However, changing the short identifier is a much more serious consideration. We have a legal call this Thursday, so any info as to why we should change that part or if my above idea would be amenable to all would be helpful.

Thanks,

Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...