On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Josh Habdas <jhabdas@...> wrote:

For the license to receive adoption it needs to be on the SPDX License List.
I am but I small Fish in a large pond.

Josh: you are getting this entirely backwards.

Instead, for a license to be on the SPDX list it must have received
adoption first. The purpose of the list is not to bless new licenses
but to provide a shorthand for common, adopted licenses [1]:

The SPDX License List is a list of commonly found licenses and exceptions
used for open source and other collaborative software.

The key word here is "commonly".... And this is further developed on
the same page.
If you want a new license to be "open source"-approved, you should
contact the OSI instead.

The ideal outcome is to provide a common template for a simple permissive
canonical crypto license to make it simple for users to add crypto wallet
addresses as mentioned in the Hacker Noon article.

Ideally we can avoid license proliferation here but I need to have a new
template accepted for the copyright statement to show the proper way to use
it. Will that necessitate the creation of a unique new license text, or can
this be done creatively without causing a new license in terms?

A copyright statement is a copyright statement , a license text is a
license text.
As much as you would like these two to be conflated in one, this is
not the way things work as stated by posts in this thread.

I think you have received a lot of valuable feedback and push back
here on your idea.

So go ahead and submit your new license idea at the OSI if you feel
like it, though I consider this a terribly bad idea to submit a new
text and this will unlikely help your new license to receive any
adoption. Since there is really nothing novel, and you are eventually
considering creating a new license text just for the purpose of having
something different I doubt this would receive much consideration
there too.

You want to define a new way to use copyright statements creatively.
So promote this but mixing this up with license texts and asking for a
unique identifier does not make sense to me and to most on this list.
There is not much more to say.

[1] https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne