Re: " Preferred License"

Alan Tse

Hi Mark,

I’m also not sure of which SPDX tool you were using but I checked with the browser extension spdx-license-diff and I get a template match to MIT since the extra part is optional as described by Steve.


Of course if you do use the browser extension and you see missing template matches with it (which I find occasionally), I’ll fix it if you report it.




From: <spdx@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>
Reply-To: "spdx@..." <spdx@...>
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 12:47 PM
To: "spdx@..." <spdx@...>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@...>, "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] " Preferred License"


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Western Digital. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe.


Hi Mark,


The MIT license template on the license list [1] has the language "(including the next paragraph)" as optional text, which is why that part shows up in blue italics on the list [2].


I think that's what you're referring to, but let me know if I'm missing something.






On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 3:19 PM Mark Atwood via <> wrote:

The " Preferred License" documented at [ ] is the MIT
license with the additional text in the middle "(including the next

Our SPDX license matching tool is not locking onto it with 100%, but instead
is showing it nearest edit distance to MIT.  I've not yet dug in deeper,

Is the variant in the SPDX database?
If not should we add it as an new license, or as matching rule variant to

If its not in the database, I will start the legwork and paperwork to add


Mark Atwood <atwoodm@...>
Principal, Open Source


Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.