FW: SPDX StandardML-NJ versus SMLNJ
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi Legal Team,
A colleague of mine pointed out a couple possible issues on the SPDX License List, see full email below.
Regarding Apache-1.1 and Entessa – I think those were probably treated distinctly because OSI approved them separately and we were ensuring alignment with the OSI list, so SPDX followed suit. Does anyone have any other memory on that?
Regarding SMLNJ and StandardML-NJ – these are indeed the same license. The latter one (StandardML-NJ) was just added as of v1.20 of the license list and as part of the Fedora list review. The former (SMLNJ) has been on the list for as of v1.17. How none of us caught this duplication is beyond me, but glad it was caught. To fix, I guess we’ll have to deprecate the later one for the next release (*sigh*) – thoughts?
From: Sam Ellis
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 8:28 AM
To: Jilayne Lovejoy
Subject: SPDX StandardML-NJ versus SMLNJ
A few SPDX questions… I noticed that the SPDX licenses for StandardML-N and SMLNJ are identical except for the copyright holder.
What is the SPDX policy with regards to whether licenses with different copyrights but identical in all other respects are considered the same or separate licenses?
On a related point, I notice that the Apache 1.1 and Entessa licenses differ by copyright holder, and in the final paragraph that explains the origins of the software.
Since the actual license terms otherwise seem identical (unless there is some implied legal implication in the final paragraph), I am curious as to the reasoning behind having them listed separately.
Sam Ellis, DS-5 Engineering Manager,
Product Engineering Group, Tel: +44 (0) 1223 400516
System Design Division, Fax: +44 (0) 1223 400887
ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, skype:armsamellis
Cambridge, CB1 9NJ mailto:sam.ellis@...