Re: Question on two MIT-derivatives
Hi Christian,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks for reaching to the SPDX project!
As this has purely to do with licenses, it may be better addressed to the legal working group at spdx-legal@....
Alternatively, feel free to raise your questions as issues on the license list GitHub repo, if you prefer: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML
From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of Christian Ehrhardt
Sent: Wednesday, 7 July, 2021 09:48
Subject: [spdx] Question on two MIT-derivatives
I was refreshing the license info on a Debian package and found two licenses that seemed to be MIT-variants that I wasn't sure about. The reason I looked at it was mostly technical as the current way to identify them was triggering a lintian warning, but as I said I wondered what would be correct.
I was not finding the two derivatives in your license list at  nor as an exception in .
There are already a bunch of MIT-* identifiers, but none matched the two that I had.
So I had no "official identifiers" to use and just came up with two for now.
I changed the identifiers like
- MIT(*) -> MIT-ibm
- MIT(**) -> MIT-no-ad
and that satisfies Lintian at least.
The full text of those can be found at .
I'm full of questions:
- having a look at them, would you think they should be added to your list and get assigned official identifiers?
- Are these even licenses on their own that deserve an ID?
- Would it need the project or License owner to do such a request?
- I'm neither of that and just looked at it by accident - If needed I'd be ok to file an issue as outlined in  and discuss, but I'm not sure I could do much more on it.
Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de>
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928