Re: CC NC/ND licenses and "general attributes of an 'open source' license"?


J Lovejoy
 



On Sep 29, 2018, at 4:00 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle@...> wrote:

This interests me also.

It's my impression, from both the license-list explanation
and the actual list, that SPDX casts a broader net than
either OSI or FSF.  Substantial compliance is sufficient.

correct. SPDX’s goal is to create a common language with which to communicate information about (open source) software. The SPDX License List was born out of the recognition for efficiency in referring to some of the same licenses over and over. I still have a vague recollection of someone suggesting we needed “a list of licenses with short names/identifiers” and Kim Weins (my co-worker at the time) saying, “Jilayne, why don’t you put that together” (because that should be easy…) and here we are almost a decade later!   The value of a common and reliable way to refer to licenses has obviously a much broader use-case, which was pretty clear right away. And the reality of the open source licenses in the wild versus those that are submitted to and OSI-approved was part of the need/use-case for a list to begin with. So, yes a broader net.


I also note:

 The SPDX Legal Team endeavors to explain its reasoning,
 analysis, and conclusions with respect to a candidate
 license as a means of developing precedent.

Compare and contrast a very recent conversation on OSI's
license-review, starting here:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-September/003535.html

ah well, like many things in life, it’s hard to leave a good enough “paper trail” for those who come new to the table. But, that is the beauty of simply asking the question, as Mike has. It is such asking that has led us to record key things or improve upon documentation, etc. But there is always likely to be still some stories and history that lives on in our memories. :) 

Jilayne

Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.