Deprecate Entessa in favour of Apache-1.1?


Karsten Klein
 

How do we deal with the slightly different obligation?

I would argue that this is not the same.

- Regards,
Karsten




metaeffekt GmbH
Firmensitz: Renettenweg 6/1, 69124 Heidelberg
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Mannheim, HRB 725313
Geschäftsführer: Karsten Klein
USt.-IdNr.: DE307084554

Diese E-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen beinhalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte den Absender und löschen Sie diese E-Mail und alle Kopien umgehend. Eine unbefugte Weitergabe der E-Mail oder deren Inhalte und Anhänge ist nicht gestattet.

Möchten Sie als Empfänger keine Informationen dieser Art erhalten, setzen Sie sich bitte unmittelbar mit dem Absender der E-Mail in Verbindung. Die metaeffekt GmbH unterstützt Ihre Datenhoheit und informationelle Selbstbestimmung und übermittelt Informationen ausschließlich auf der Rechtsgrundlage der europäischen Datenschutzgrundverordnung (DSGVO). Weitere Informationen zu den Datenverarbeitungsvorgängen und insbesondere Ihrer Rechte entnehmen Sie der Datenschutzerklärung der metaeffekt GmbH <http://www.metaeffekt.com/files/metaeffekt-data-privacy_v2018-05-29.pdf>.



On 12.03.20, 13:00, "Matija Šuklje" <Spdx-legal@... on behalf of matija@...> wrote:

On sreda, 11. marec 2020 22:47:40 CET, J Lovejoy wrote:

> And SPDX License List endeavored to add any and all licenses
> ever approved by OSI in the early days, so… here we are. We
> didn’t have the matching guidelines established back then, I
> don’t think, but in any case, it has been on the OSI approved
> list for a very long time (as in before SPDX License List birth,
> I believe). OSI considers it a “vanity” license, in so many
> words - which is probably why we don’t have any markup on the
> acknowledgment statement.

I suspected as such, yes. I did check the OSI list when I stumbled upon it.

> Would a Note explaining this suffice?

Ideally I would like to have it deprecated (also on OSI), but note would
work as well.

Thanks for looking into this. I didn’t want to open an issue right away, as
I suspected it was some legacy thing.


cheers,
Matija
--
gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552
www: https://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: matija.suklje@...
sip: matija_suklje@...


Matija Šuklje
 

On sreda, 11. marec 2020 22:47:40 CET, J Lovejoy wrote:

And SPDX License List endeavored to add any and all licenses ever approved by OSI in the early days, so… here we are. We didn’t have the matching guidelines established back then, I don’t think, but in any case, it has been on the OSI approved list for a very long time (as in before SPDX License List birth, I believe). OSI considers it a “vanity” license, in so many words - which is probably why we don’t have any markup on the acknowledgment statement.
I suspected as such, yes. I did check the OSI list when I stumbled upon it.

Would a Note explaining this suffice?
Ideally I would like to have it deprecated (also on OSI), but note would work as well.

Thanks for looking into this. I didn’t want to open an issue right away, as I suspected it was some legacy thing.


cheers,
Matija
--
gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552
www: https://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: matija.suklje@...
sip: matija_suklje@...


J Lovejoy
 

Hi Matija,

Hmm… I thought we had put a Note in Entessa explaining this, but apparently not.  Perhaps there is another case like this that I am thinking of:

The reason we have Entessa on the SPDX License List is because OSI approved it as a separate license. See https://opensource.org/licenses/Entessa

And SPDX License List endeavored to add any and all licenses ever approved by OSI in the early days, so… here we are.  We didn’t have the matching guidelines established back then, I don’t think, but in any case, it has been on the OSI approved list for a very long time (as in before SPDX License List birth, I believe).  OSI considers it a “vanity” license, in so many words - which is probably why we don’t have any markup on the acknowledgment statement.

Would a Note explaining this suffice?

Jilayne

On Mar 11, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Matija Šuklje <matija@...> wrote:

Hi,

I just stumbled upon Entessa for the first time in real life, and
upon checking it with both FOSSology/Monk and SPDX License Diff,
I can’t see how it qualifies as a separate license, instead of a
variation of Apache-1.1.

Is it possible to deprecate it in favour of the Apache-1.1
template?

The only difference that seems to be outside of the current
Apache-1.1 template is the wording:
“This product includes open source software”(Entessa)
instead of only:
“This product includes software” (Apache-1.1)

relevant old issue:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/840

cheers,
Matija Šuklje
--
gsm:    +386 41 849 552
www:    http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp:   matija.suklje@...
sip:    matija_suklje@...








Matija Šuklje
 

Hi,

I just stumbled upon Entessa for the first time in real life, and
upon checking it with both FOSSology/Monk and SPDX License Diff,
I can’t see how it qualifies as a separate license, instead of a
variation of Apache-1.1.

Is it possible to deprecate it in favour of the Apache-1.1
template?

The only difference that seems to be outside of the current
Apache-1.1 template is the wording:
“This product includes open source software”(Entessa)
instead of only:
“This product includes software” (Apache-1.1)

relevant old issue:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/840

cheers,
Matija Šuklje
--
gsm: +386 41 849 552
www: http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: matija.suklje@...
sip: matija_suklje@...