New License Request
|
Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@...>
Full Name: Eclipse Distribution License License Short Identifier: EDL-1.0 URL: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.html Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved: Yes http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause 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. The EDL-1.0 is used by Eclipse projects with the approval of the Eclipse Board of Directors. Eclipse Foundation projects that currently use the EDL-1.0 include: Orion |
|
|
|
Tom Incorvia
Hi Mike and SPDX,
I have been out of the loop for a while, but I thought that we were not going to have separate licenses for exact matches to existing licenses such as BSD-3-Clause.
I do realize that this is a prominent BSD-3-Clause template license, but if we include an exact template match that will open us up to logging every BSD-3-Clause – there are thousands. I track 343 different BSD-3-Clause just at Micro Focus.
Has there been a discussion of alternative ways to represent important template-matched licenses?
Tom
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 Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:48 AM To: spdx-legal@... Cc: Janet Campbell Subject: New License Request
Orion --
Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com |
|
|
|
Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@...>
On 03/03/2014 12:18 PM, Tom Incorvia
wrote:
I have been out of the loop for a while, but I thought that we were not going to have separate licenses for exact matches to existing licenses such as BSD-3-Clause. I don't follow SPDX closely enough to know such things. If that's the case, do we simply use the "BSD-3-Clause" identifier for the EDL? |
|
|
|
Dennis Clark
Mike, I have recorded your request at http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/License_List/Licenses_Under_Consideration#Licenses_Under_Consideration
I believe that BSD-3-Clause is your best option. The Legal working group will make a final decision the next time we review new license requests. Regards, Dennis Clark
nexB Inc. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
J Lovejoy
Hi Mike,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for the request. Dennis and Tom are right - according to your License Matching Guidelines (located here: http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/matching-guidelines), this would be a BSD-3-Clause. We had actually reviewed this as part of our on-going review of the Fedora list and noted as such in the tracking spreadsheet for the Fedora list https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmVnI0dGKEo1dENVVHFNeG5hQjAyYjQ3bm1VVUdjOFE#gid=1 If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask! Cheers, Jilayne On Mar 3, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Dennis Clark <dmclark@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@...>
On 05/03/2014 11:56 AM, J Lovejoy
wrote:
If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask! That's fine. "BSD-3-Clause" is a perfectly good answer. Thanks everyone for all the help! |
|
|
