Re: question: SPDX license for "The Linux Foundation"
J Lovejoy
Hi Steve,
To clarify then, are you requesting this be added to the SPDX License List (officially)? If so, would you mind sending an email, using this format (or list of items) and then the SPDX Legal Team can review on our next call (Oct 2)?
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license
Thanks!!
Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
To clarify then, are you requesting this be added to the SPDX License List (officially)? If so, would you mind sending an email, using this format (or list of items) and then the SPDX Legal Team can review on our next call (Oct 2)?
http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license
Thanks!!
Jilayne
SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...
On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Steve Rae <srae@...> wrote:
On 14-09-05 07:49 AM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Steve Rae <srae@...> wrote:(exactly my point!)Which SPDX license matches this text?The only material difference with BSD-3-Clause seems to be in the disclaimer :
* Copyright (c) 2009, Google Inc.
* All rights reserved.
* Copyright (c) 2009-2014, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* * Neither the name of The Linux Foundation nor
* the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote
* products derived from this software without specific prior written
* permission.
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
IS"
* AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
AND
* NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
* CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
* EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
* PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS;
* OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
* WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
* OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
* ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.>
(from:
https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=master)
It is _almost_ BSD-3-Clause, but not identical...
[...] FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED [...]
where
"AND NON-INFRINGEMENT" is added
I am not sure the SDPX legal team would consider this as a material change.
The irony is of course that this comes from the LF proper.
But I assume that I (I am NOT the copyright holder) cannot simply drop the existing wording and state that it is "BSD-3-Clause"; correct?
So it would be great if a new item WAS added which contained the "NON-INFRINGEMENT" clause!
Thanks in advance, Steve_______________________________________________
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
+1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@...
DejaCode : What's in your code?! at http://www.dejacode.com
nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal