Re: Hello world and additional licenses

Philip Odence

Welcome, Soeren. Glad to have you aboard. 

This is certainly fair discussion. The goal has been to have the standard license list cover a large majority of cases (Kate's been talking about 90% coverage). Beyond that we have provided a mechanism for including licenses that are not on the list, the main differences being that for the latter the user will include the text of the license in the SPDX file, not just a reference to our list. 

So, that fact that you have run across a license in your work would not on the face say that it meets the criteria for being included on the list. Do you think the licenses you list are fairly common and would belong on the list for that reason? Or do you think our criteria are too tight and that we should try to be more comprehensive in our coverage?


L. Philip Odence
Vice President of Business Development
Black Duck Software, inc.
265 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: 781.810.1819, Mobile: 781.258.9502

On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:30 AM, <Soeren_Rabenstein@...> wrote:

Hello spdx mailing list

I guess I am the first new subscriber, since you went public?
My name is Soeren Rabenstein, I am in ASUSTeK's legal department since early 2009 and responsible for European legal compliance as well as implementation of a FOSS license compliance program.

Thank you for creating the specification. We are very interested in bringing forward the standard, since "Software-BOMs" form a key element of our compliance program (we actually switched to the term "BOC"="Bill of Code", to avoid confusion with actual, physical BOMs) and supply chain management turned out to be the biggest challenge over here.

As a first contribution, I compared the list of specified licenses in the spdx-draft with my own approval list. As a result I would like to propose the following licenses to be added to spdx. With the exception of the last item, these are all licenses I came across during my practice. I may add them myself through the wiki, but currently I cannot see a working wiki page on this.
I am also happy to dig our more licenses that are not yet listed.

License Identifier: ClArtistic
Formal Name: Clarified Artistic License 1.0

License Identifier: XFree86-1.1
Formal Name: XFree86 License 1.1

License Identifier: Ruby
Formal Name: Ruby License

License Identifier: RHeCos
Formal Name: Red Hat eCos Public License v1.1

License Identifier: eCos
Formal Name: The eCos license version 2.0

License Identifier: OSSL
Formal Name: OpenSSL License
URL: ? (No direct web source known, license text therefore attached to this mail)

License Identifier: ErlPL
Formal Name: Erlang Public License Version 1.1

License Identifier: gsoPL
Formal Name: gSOAP Public License Version 1.3b

License Identifier: SugPL
Formal Name: SugarCRM Public License

License Identifier: YPL
Formal Name: Yahoo! Public License 1.1

License Identifier: OLDAP-2.8
Formal Name: OpenLDAP Public License Version 2.8

License Identifier: ZimPL
Formal Name: Zimbra Public License, Version 1.3


License Identifier: WTFPL
Formal Name: Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License

Kind regards

Soeren Rabenstein

Soeren Rabenstein, LL.M.
Legal Affairs Center - Legal Compliance Dept.
15, Li-Te Rd., Taipei 112, Taiwan
Tel.: (+886) 2 2894 3447 Ext.2372
Fax.: (+886) 2 2890 7674

This email and any attachments to it contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
is addressed.If you are not the intended recipient or receive it accidentally, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete
the message and any attachments from your computer system, and destroy all hard copies. If any, please be advised that any unauthorized
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is illegal and prohibited. Furthermore, any views
or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of ASUSTeK. Thank you for your cooperation.

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.