Re: New license request

Dennis Clark


As recorded at the SPDX legal working group has decided not to add the MSPPL to the SPDX License List. 

Your request sparked a great deal of discussion about license inclusion criteria.  I have attempted to summarize the main points as follows: 

"The major concern regarding this license text is the lack of a specific Version designation for this text by Microsoft, which could change the text at any time without providing a new unique identifier. This is a common situation with many free proprietary licenses that are specific to a vendor and contain various restrictions that tie the license to that vendor only. It would be better to capture the specific applicable text using the SPDX License Ref option when specifying that this license applies to a software package being used."

Thanks for providing the team with a great case to re-examine the current scope of the SPDX license list, and the emphasis continues to be on open source licenses in order to make the best use of available SPDX resources.

Dennis Clark

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Fendt, Oliver <oliver.fendt@...> wrote:

Thanks Phil, it would be really great


Von: Philip Odence [mailto:podence@...]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:52

An: Fendt, Oliver; Tom Incorvia; Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: spdx-legal@...
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: New license request


We have definitely gone beyond the OSI list and even beyond the OSI definition, but have tried, for now, to keep it to open source-like licenses. See for a complete explanation of how we decide to include a license. In my opinion the MSPPL is a very reasonable request, not to say we will for sure include, but it is worthy of discussion by the legal team.


From: "Fendt, Oliver" <oliver.fendt@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:45:46 +0000
To: Phil Odence <podence@...>, Tom Incorvia <tom.incorvia@...>, Jilayne Lovejoy <opensource@...>
Cc: "spdx-legal@..." <spdx-legal@...>
Subject: AW: AW: New license request


Hi Phil,


thank you for the feedback. I understand that you want to focus right now on Open Source although the “Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 1.0” and following versions as well as “Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 1.0” and following versions are in the list and which are in my opinion _not_ OSD compliant. But I’m not a lawyer.





Von: Philip Odence [mailto:podence@...]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:39
An: Fendt, Oliver; Tom Incorvia; Jilayne Lovejoy
Cc: spdx-legal@...
Betreff: Re: AW: New license request



What you say makes conceptual sense and perhaps we might “go there” some day with the license list. At this point in order to do a good job with the resources we have we have decided to say focused on open source, although we have let that definition go beyond the 67 or so licenses that the OSI has approved. So, your request is a reasonable one. 

I will point out, just in case you are not aware, that there is a mechanism in the spec for handling licenses that are not on the list. Essentially you can create an addendum to the license list locally to the particular SPDX doc and in that define other licenses (by including the text) and associated short names for use in that SPDX doc. 


L. Philip Odence

Vice President of Corporate and Business Development

Black Duck Software, Inc.

8 New England Executive Park, Suite 211, Burlington MA 01803

Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502

Skype: philip.odence




From: "Fendt, Oliver" <oliver.fendt@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:17:33 +0000
To: Tom Incorvia <tom.incorvia@...>, Jilayne Lovejoy <opensource@...>
Cc: "spdx-legal@..." <spdx-legal@...>
Subject: AW: New license request


Hi Jilayne, hi Tom


Thank you for the feedback.

I will try to make it to be in the telco.


This is a very interesting discussion. From a practical point of view  we need a standard to provide license and copyright information of 3rd party software. Further it would be wonderful if there is one place where one can find a complete collection of (OSS) licenses. It would be great if we can use SPDX one day in future for the declaration of “3rd party software” no matter whether the 3rd party software is OSS or not. This would really make live a lot easier. Of course I understand that this is part of the open compliance program and not part of a “3rd party software compliance program”. But  I think that the standard is powerful enough to serve both OSS (which is a special case of third party software) and other 3rd party software .




Von: Tom Incorvia [mailto:tom.incorvia@...]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 13:39
An: J Lovejoy
Cc: Fendt, Oliver; SPDX-legal
Betreff: RE: New license request


Hi Jilayne,


Thanks for pointing out the possible flexibility in the license list; Oliver, thanks again for taking the time to submit this license.  I’ll be on the call today – great if you could join us in the discussion.


With regards to the “contributions need not be in source code form”, I was referring to section G: Binary Code Files - The software may include certain binary code files for which its source code is not included as part of the software, or that are packaged without the source code in an installable or executable package. As to these binary code files, unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you must comply with all technical limitations in those files that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not modify, work around any technical limitations in, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble these binary code files, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation.






Tom Incorvia; tom.incorvia@...; O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015

From: J Lovejoy [mailto:opensource@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:17 PM
To: Tom Incorvia
Cc: Oliver Fendt; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: New license request


Hi Oliver, Tom,


Just to clarify on Tom’s points - the normal process is to review based on the OSD as a starting point, although for a license to be on the SPDX License List, it does not need to strictly adhere to the OSD (see more info here, in particular, the bit under “Candidate License Analysis”


So, thanks to Oliver for his submission and to Tom for beginning the process via email (we do need more of that…) and surely the discussion will continue on the next legal call, which is tomorrow (hint hint)!


Tom, I’m not entirely clear what you mean by ‘contributions need not be in source code form” - which section are you referring to?


Oliver, I can’t remember what time zone you are in, but if you can join the call tomorrow, that would be helpful for the discussion, I’m sure.  It’s at 1pm ET and the dial-in info is:

Call this number: (United States) 1-415-363-0849 

Enter this PIN: 336247 

Alternative Numbers:





SPDX Legal Team co-lead


On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Tom Incorvia <tom.incorvia@...> wrote:


Hello Fendt,


I have been out of the SPDX mix for a while, but I believe that this license would not be considered an open source license based on theOSI criteria – this license is used by Microsoft for certain free distributions (for instance, the Microsoft Parallel Computing Platform).  However, these distributions have restrictions:


-          Contributions need not be in source code form

-          The license grants are limited to Microsoft platforms

-          Reverse engineering of binary files is prohibited (except where local law expressly permits)


I worked with SPDX for several years, and contributions like this are valued.  If you are interested in contributing as a team member, please communicate with Philip Odence podence@..., to determine which team would be the best fit – we are always looking for individuals who are involved in licensing.




Tom Incorvia

Tom Incorvia; tom.incorvia@...; O: (512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838; Shoretel (Internal): X27015

From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Fendt, Oliver
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:31 AM
To: spdx-legal@...
Subject: New license request


Hi all,


We have found a license which is currently not available in the SPDX license list and I did not find it in the list “licenses under consideration”,  due to this I want to request that it will be included in the SPDX license list.

Please find below the required information for inclusion. The information provided by me is marked with “[Oliver]”


Thanks in advance. Please contact me if there are questions.


Provide a proposed Full Name for the license.

[Oliver] Microsoft patterns & practices License


Provide a proposed License Short Identifier.

[Oliver]  MSPPL


Provide a functioning URL reference to the license text, either from the license author or a community recognized source for the license text.


Create and attach a text file with the license text from the URL provided in #3. Proofread license text file to ensure that:



Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No]

[Oliver] No


Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license to be included on the License List, including identifying at least one program that uses this license or a prior version of this license.

[Oliver] this license is used quite frequently in the context of the programming language C#


Please contact me if you need further information.







Click here to report this email as spam.


This message has been scanned for malware by Websense.

Spdx-legal mailing list


_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@...

Spdx-legal mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.