Re: NTP/old style MIT licenses

Steve Winslow
 

Hi Armijn,

From a quick look at the licenses on the license list, I see a couple that are close, but which would be considered different licenses under the SPDX matching guidelines [1]:

* NTP [2] -- very similar but contains some additional non-optional text that isn't in the one you sent (e.g. requirements around copyright notices)
* HPND [3] -- similar to NTP but also includes second all-caps disclaimer paragraph

Given that NTP and HPND appear to require reproduction of copyright notices, and the one you sent doesn't appear to require it, I'd say that most likely it would be considered substantively different from those, given the way the SPDX legal team looks at licenses. In other words, probably makes sense to add this to the license list as a separate entry.

If you want to submit an issue for this to the license-list-XML repo [4], that would be excellent  :)

Steve


On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:42 AM Armijn Hemel - Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions <armijn@...> wrote:
hello,

I searched but I couldn't find it in the archives, so apologies if this
question has already come up.

Recently I looked at some old code from e2fsprogs:

https://github.com/tytso/e2fsprogs/blob/master/lib/et/et_name.c

The license is an old style MIT license:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Old_Style_.28no_advertising_without_permission.29

According to Dejacode (hi Philippe!) this license is equivalent to the
NTP license:

https://enterprise.dejacode.com/licenses/public/mit-old-style-no-advert/

but I have trouble finding any discussion about it. Am I looking in the
wrong place, or have these licenses not been under consideration yet? :-)

armijn


--
Armijn Hemel, MSc
Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions







--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation

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