1. Spdx-Legal
  2. Messages

Re: Deprecate Entessa in favour of Apache-1.1?

J Lovejoy
 

Hi Matija,

Hmm… I thought we had put a Note in Entessa explaining this, but apparently not.  Perhaps there is another case like this that I am thinking of:

The reason we have Entessa on the SPDX License List is because OSI approved it as a separate license. See https://opensource.org/licenses/Entessa

And SPDX License List endeavored to add any and all licenses ever approved by OSI in the early days, so… here we are.  We didn’t have the matching guidelines established back then, I don’t think, but in any case, it has been on the OSI approved list for a very long time (as in before SPDX License List birth, I believe).  OSI considers it a “vanity” license, in so many words - which is probably why we don’t have any markup on the acknowledgment statement.

Would a Note explaining this suffice?

Jilayne

On Mar 11, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Matija Šuklje <matija@...> wrote:

Hi,

I just stumbled upon Entessa for the first time in real life, and
upon checking it with both FOSSology/Monk and SPDX License Diff,
I can’t see how it qualifies as a separate license, instead of a
variation of Apache-1.1.

Is it possible to deprecate it in favour of the Apache-1.1
template?

The only difference that seems to be outside of the current
Apache-1.1 template is the wording:
“This product includes open source software”(Entessa)
instead of only:
“This product includes software” (Apache-1.1)

relevant old issue:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/840

cheers,
Matija Šuklje
--
gsm:    +386 41 849 552
www:    http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp:   matija.suklje@...
sip:    matija_suklje@...
Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.