D had always bothered me a little, but mostly in the context of historically preserved licenses. The BSD, CMU and MIT license families have undergone a fair amount of copying with errors and mutation.

I was using beerware as an example to ask the question: what separates it from PD, especially with the public domain dedications that try to work around EU law in different ways. Is it the grant of pe

On a related question, there's several licenses that are close to the public domain. Eg: "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42): <phk@...> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you

Each of the individual files retains the original copyright and license, as the original author required. You are required to still abide by the terms in those files (but each individual grant is not

Please define "INBOUND" and "OUTBOUND" licenses. None of the open source licenses indexed by SPDX grant permission to relicense the derived work, so any work including them either is solely the origin

What does that have to do with anything? This is marketing material, not a license nor a grant to "file off" the old license and add your own new one. You are only allowed to add your new one and the

What makes you think they don't apply? If you have to reproduce the notice, the terms apply. You can't just take code and change the license without the permission of the copyright holders/owners/etc.

Are you allowed to do that without it becoming an AND? You can't just change the terms w/o permission like that I'd imagine... And I'm not sure how it would generalize... Warner

I agree here. I think semvar's notions are an imperfect fit for the nature of the license repo. We've selected major number to indicate a format (which one could argue is the semantic element that cou

I'll point out that the variations are an enormous pain in the ass for FreeBSD and create more uncertainty and compliance issues not less. If I don't reproduce every single license in the tree, verbat

There's no Linux drm code in FreeBSD proper. Certainly none with the new-style having the only SPDX-License-Identifier: tags (there's a few stragglers from some ancient drm implementation used only on

The plan for FreeBSD is to say that when there's an SPDX-License-Identifier: and no other grant of license, it should be construed (right word?) to include that identifier (eg MIT) from /usr/share/lic

Perhaps we should recommend that any policy about the license marking of files should address this. FreeBSD's policy will likely state that the actual boiler plate license text in the file is controll

I'm ready to go if there's space in the agenda. My rehearsal of the talk clocks in at about 15 minutes, though I could trim this a bit because it's heavy on history to try to provide the full context

Right. This doesn't answer my question about their heirloom /bin/sh. Was it from Caldera or was it from Sun? And why did they drop the intro text? Warner

I've been grappling with this in the FreeBSD project. I'll share my perspective. There's two parts to that advice. The first is to include the standard boilerplate text to invoke the license ("the sta

I wonder why they are using the Caldera license? Did they harvest these files from the 7th Edition of Unix, or did Sun license these and Caldera made them put this license on things? The version 7 /bi

I'll give an update on FreeBSD's use of SPDX next time. Work has been unexpectedly busy so I've not had time to prepare. Warner

That was my plan, but I will have to do it next time. I'm fighting internet issues and since comcast is involved, it's looking like it is going to take a while. Warner

Sure. SPDX arouse as a way to cope with the variations on different licenses by providing a set of templates, with variations, to match. Since these variations had no legal differences, this was viewe