Hi Jilayne,
Welcome. :)

--- On Mon, 8/30/10, Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...> wrote:

From: Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>
Subject: RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 1, Issue 16
To: spdx@...
Date: Monday, August 30, 2010, 1:50 PM

1) I noticed the license list included some of the GPL
exceptions such
as Autoconf and Bison.  My understanding is that the
text for these
exceptions would be the exception itself (not the full
license) and so
there would need to be a way to pair the exception with the
proper GPL
version in such a way that is distinct from dual and
disjunctive
licensing situations.  Otherwise, we would need to
list each GPL version
with each exception as separate and whole licenses. 

Text for each exception, should include exception and original licenses.

2)  I noticed the license list included in the mailing
list is more
comprehensive than the one on the website - am I correct to
assume this
is only because the website has not been updated? 
Regardless, I'd be
happy to help sort through the BSD and MIT licenses once
the text is
available.

Web site is behind on being updated. What is most accurate right now is the spec document at http://www.spdx.org/spec/current. Its behind some of the proposals on the mail list. So if you could help sort out the BSD and MIT licenses that should be proposed to be added, it would be very much appreciated.

3) Regarding the BSD and Apache 1.1 licenses in particular
- both of
these incorporate the name of the author within the license
text.  This
is especially difficult in Apache 1.1 as it affects the
third, fourth,
and fifth clauses.  Where the license text is
otherwise verbatim, do we
have a way to handle this in terms of how the standard
license will
appear in the master list, as well as some sort of protocol
for how
"exact" a license must be to be matched to the standard
version?

To address this, we have been discussing the notion of a template version of the license, but haven't gotten around to figuring out the syntax of the parts that can vary and still comply. If you've got ideas here, feel free to propose to list, Daniel G. and Bob G. have been commenting on this as well.

4) Agree with Peter that the CeCILL licenses should be on
the list,
which then begs the question of how to deal with a license
that is
available in multiple languages (EUPL also comes to mind)?

re: EUPL... good question. Ideas are welcome. Probably need to treat each language version as separate version to be explicitly recognized.
Maybe suffix to determine language used? not sure... how common are the non-english licenses in practice?

Thanks, Kate