Philip Odence twisted the bytes to say:


Philip> Yes, and let's not forget this same point when we are talking about the process of adding new license to the standard list. The discussion is never
Philip> whether the license can be included in an SPDX file—it always can be—the only issue from the SPDX file creator's perspective is whether it matches a
Philip> license on the standard list with a predefined short name, or whether they have to go the one extra step of including the license text in Section 4.
Philip> Licensing Info and create their own local short name.

One interesting aspect of licenses that are "almost" a match is that, if
they are only listed as "unknown", the knowledge/analysis performed by
the SPDX-file's author might be lost (why is such license unknown).

Perhaps a "comment" field attached to any attribute (file, package, etc)
that can have a license would be very useful to include a rational.

--dmg


--
--
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org/
http://silvernegative.com/
dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .