|
Mark Atwood (Amazon.com)
The "X.org Preferred License" documented at [ https://www.x.org/archive/current/doc/xorg-docs/License.html ] is the MIT license with the additional text in the middle "(including the next paragraph)". Our SPDX license matching tool is not locking onto it with 100%, but instead is showing it nearest edit distance to MIT. I've not yet dug in deeper, but, Is the X.org variant in the SPDX database? If not should we add it as an new license, or as matching rule variant to MIT? If its not in the database, I will start the legwork and paperwork to add it. ..m Mark Atwood <atwoodm@...> Principal, Open Source +1-206-604-2198
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
The MIT license template on the license list [1] has the language "(including the next paragraph)" as optional text, which is why that part shows up in blue italics on the list [2].
I think that's what you're referring to, but let me know if I'm missing something.
Best, Steve
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The "X.org Preferred License" documented at [
https://www.x.org/archive/current/doc/xorg-docs/License.html ] is the MIT
license with the additional text in the middle "(including the next
paragraph)".
Our SPDX license matching tool is not locking onto it with 100%, but instead
is showing it nearest edit distance to MIT. I've not yet dug in deeper,
but,
Is the X.org variant in the SPDX database?
If not should we add it as an new license, or as matching rule variant to
MIT?
If its not in the database, I will start the legwork and paperwork to add
it.
..m
Mark Atwood <atwoodm@...>
Principal, Open Source
+1-206-604-2198
-- Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
I’m also not sure of which SPDX tool you were using but I checked with the browser extension
spdx-license-diff and I get a template match to MIT since the extra part is optional as described by Steve.
Of course if you do use the browser extension and you see missing template matches with it (which I find occasionally), I’ll fix it if you
report it.
Alan
From: <spdx@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>
Reply-To: "spdx@..." <spdx@...>
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 12:47 PM
To: "spdx@..." <spdx@...>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@...>, "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] "X.org Preferred License"
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Western Digital. Do not click on links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe.
The MIT license template on the license list [1] has the language "(including the next paragraph)" as optional text, which is why that part shows up in blue italics on the list [2].
I think that's what you're referring to, but let me know if I'm missing something.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 3:19 PM Mark Atwood via
lists.spdx.org <atwoodm= amazon.com@...> wrote:
The "X.org Preferred License" documented at [
https://www.x.org/archive/current/doc/xorg-docs/License.html ] is the MIT
license with the additional text in the middle "(including the next
paragraph)".
Our SPDX license matching tool is not locking onto it with 100%, but instead
is showing it nearest edit distance to MIT. I've not yet dug in deeper,
but,
Is the X.org variant in the SPDX database?
If not should we add it as an new license, or as matching rule variant to
MIT?
If its not in the database, I will start the legwork and paperwork to add
it.
..m
Mark Atwood <atwoodm@...>
Principal, Open Source
+1-206-604-2198
--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
|
|
|
Mark Atwood (Amazon.com)
Thanks, and I see it’s already done. Now I need to see why my tool isn’t matching it. ..m
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:47 PM
To: spdx@...
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@...>; Atwood, Mark <atwoodm@...>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [spdx] "X.org Preferred License" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. |
The MIT license template on the license list [1] has the language "(including the next paragraph)" as optional text, which is why that part shows up in blue italics on the list [2]. I think that's what you're referring to, but let me know if I'm missing something. The "X.org Preferred License" documented at [
https://www.x.org/archive/current/doc/xorg-docs/License.html ] is the MIT
license with the additional text in the middle "(including the next
paragraph)".
Our SPDX license matching tool is not locking onto it with 100%, but instead
is showing it nearest edit distance to MIT. I've not yet dug in deeper,
but,
Is the X.org variant in the SPDX database?
If not should we add it as an new license, or as matching rule variant to
MIT?
If its not in the database, I will start the legwork and paperwork to add
it.
..m
Mark Atwood <atwoodm@...>
Principal, Open Source
+1-206-604-2198
--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
|
|
|
Steve Kilbane
I'm glad this topic came up, because I hadn't heard of spdx-license-diff before, and now I have it installed. That's a pretty good start to a Friday!
Thanks, Alan!
steve
From: spdx@... <spdx@...>
On Behalf Of Alan Tse
Sent: 14 January 2021 21:26
To: spdx@...
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@...>; Atwood, Mark <atwoodm@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] "X.org Preferred License"
Hi Mark,
I’m also not sure of which SPDX tool you were using but I checked with the browser extension
spdx-license-diff and I get a template match to MIT since the extra part is optional as described by Steve.
Of course if you do use the browser extension and you see missing template matches with it (which I find occasionally), I’ll fix it if you
report it.
Alan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Western Digital.
Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe.
The MIT license template on the license list [1] has the language "(including the next paragraph)" as optional text, which is why that part shows up in blue italics on the list [2].
I think that's what you're referring to, but let me know if I'm missing something.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 3:19 PM Mark Atwood via
lists.spdx.org <atwoodm=amazon.com@...> wrote:
The "X.org Preferred License" documented at [
https://www.x.org/archive/current/doc/xorg-docs/License.html
] is the MIT
license with the additional text in the middle "(including the next
paragraph)".
Our SPDX license matching tool is not locking onto it with 100%, but instead
is showing it nearest edit distance to MIT. I've not yet dug in deeper,
but,
Is the X.org variant in the SPDX database?
If not should we add it as an new license, or as matching rule variant to
MIT?
If its not in the database, I will start the legwork and paperwork to add
it.
..m
Mark Atwood <atwoodm@...>
Principal, Open Source
+1-206-604-2198
--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
|
|
|
Till Jaeger
Hi Alan,
Your Firefox extension works really well. Thanks for this great tool!
Best,
Till
Am 14.01.21 um 22:26 schrieb Alan Tse:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi Mark,
I’m also not sure of which SPDX tool you were using but I checked with
the browser extension spdx-license-diff
<https://github.com/spdx/spdx-license-diff> and I get a template match
to MIT since the extra part is optional as described by Steve.
Of course if you do use the browser extension and you see missing
template matches with it (which I find occasionally), I’ll fix it if you
report it <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-license-diff/issues>.
Alan
*From: *<spdx@...> on behalf of Steve Winslow
<swinslow@...>
*Reply-To: *"spdx@..." <spdx@...>
*Date: *Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 12:47 PM
*To: *"spdx@..." <spdx@...>
*Cc: *Kate Stewart <kstewart@...>, "Atwood, Mark"
<atwoodm@...>
*Subject: *Re: [spdx] "X.org Preferred License"
*CAUTION:**This email originated from outside of Western Digital. Do not
click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know that the content is safe.*
Hi Mark,
The MIT license template on the license list [1] has the language
"(including the next paragraph)" as optional text, which is why that
part shows up in blue italics on the list [2].
I think that's what you're referring to, but let me know if I'm missing
something.
Best,
Steve
[1]
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/a32a839b7385c9a797a26fa45c6f6234947b7abe/src/MIT.xml#L22
[2] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 3:19 PM Mark Atwood via lists.spdx.org
<http://lists.spdx.org> <atwoodm=amazon.com@...
<mailto:amazon.com@...>> wrote:
The "X.org Preferred License" documented at [
https://www.x.org/archive/current/doc/xorg-docs/License.html ] is
the MIT
license with the additional text in the middle "(including the next
paragraph)".
Our SPDX license matching tool is not locking onto it with 100%, but
instead
is showing it nearest edit distance to MIT. I've not yet dug in deeper,
but,
Is the X.org variant in the SPDX database?
If not should we add it as an new license, or as matching rule
variant to
MIT?
If its not in the database, I will start the legwork and paperwork
to add
it.
..m
Mark Atwood <atwoodm@... <mailto:atwoodm@...>>
Principal, Open Source
+1-206-604-2198
--
Steve Winslow
Director of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
swinslow@... <mailto:swinslow@...>
|
|
|
