Re: for discussion: license inclusion guidelines
Phil Odence <phil.odence@...>
All makes sense to me. Good idea.
Spdx-legal@... <Spdx-legal@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>
Jilayne -- yes, I'd be open to a lighter-weight or streamlined approach to approving licenses submitted from use in distros such as Debian and Fedora.
In these cases we have greater confidence that those communities have done the work to vet certain of the license inclusion principles. In particular the first and most important "Other Factor" re: "substantially complies with open source definitions"; and its inclusion in the distro likely demonstrates the "substantial use" factor for SPDX purposes.
I expect we'd want to be a bit specific about what we mean by "is included in the distro". For instance, for Debian I'd think `main` would be covered, `non-free` would not, and I don't know for `contrib`. I don't know how Fedora divides things up...
I could see a Change Proposal being appropriate here. Modifying the License Inclusion Principles is a pretty substantive policy change and not something we want to undertake lightly or frequently.
Karsten -- you're welcome to put together and share a formal Change Proposal for your concept if you would like. Speaking personally, I would not be in favor of making that change to a sort of two-tiered license list. If you do want to discuss it further on the mailing list, I'd ask if you could please discuss it in a separate thread, so that we're not diverting from Jilayne's original question here regarding Debian / Fedora. Thanks!
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 1:49 AM Karsten Klein <karsten.klein@...> wrote: