The only material difference with BSD-3-Clause seems to be in the disclaimer : [...] FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED [...] where "AND NON-INFRINGEMENT" is added I

Howdy:! I am replying on the legal list that would be the right place ... Thank you and good point ... this is the original URL, but ever since Oracle bumped it to 1.1 it has disappeared... as many ot

<michel.ruffin@...> wrote: Michel: My 2 cents, I would possibly express this either: * as lplg-2.1+ {mit bsd-3-clause and a long list of licenses .... } using my 'little language' OR *

Exactly! The intent when I wrote down an example starting with "I think" is to show where such a syntax could capture eventual interpretations that a user/adopter of SDPX would want to express. I am N

Guten Tag Wolfgang! and thanks for your feedback. You are absolutely right there and being a programmer I had hesitated a little about the implications then, and thought that it would be OK to forego

Let me bring my 2 cents to the discussion. A while back I wrote down this little language to compose licenses. The point was to : - make this easy enough for humans and machines to read, write and und

I reckon there is a value in having a comprehensive and universal list of licenses, but I sincerely doubt this is something that should in the SPDX list as it is today, for the reasons I mentioned in

<tom.incorvia@...> wrote: This is an interesting case. I am not sure that we should support as broad a list as possible. The current SPDX spec has support for direct reference (LicenseRef)

<jbuttura@...> wrote: Jason: there is a good reason for this: The use of the V1.0 license was limited to a brief period in time and a long seven years ago. Cases of actual reuse of code under th

Bradley: this is an excellent offer and idea. Please go for it!