As per the discussion during Friday's License call, I typed up a
guideline/description of what should/should not be included in the
License Notes field on the License List:


License Notes field guidelines
- For the purpose of describing what kinds of information
should or can be included in this field and what kinds of information
should not be included here with examples of both.

The information included in the License Notes field should consist of
factual information only. Opinions or interpretations of the license
should not be included here. Factual information may include such
information as the dates of a revision or new version if that
information is not already included in the license itself or a note
stating that the license has been deprecated by the author. For
example, the BSD license might have a Note stating that the original
advertising clause was deleted as of July 22, 1999. (see "Historical
Note" here for full example:
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php) This field may also be
used to communicate updates to the license due to typographical errors
or other data entry alterations (that are not changes to the license by
the license's author).

Information that in any way interprets the license or draws conclusions
as to what the license requires is not appropriate. For example, links
to interpretations of the license, even if written by the license's
author, should not be included here. Much external information exists
on license interpretation and we do not want to favor one over the
other. Likewise, statements that the license is a dedication to the
public domain should not be included. This is a determination for the
recipient of the license to make, not the SPDX creator.