Re: New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)
Philippe Ombredanne
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.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 permissiveA 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
|
|