On 2018-02-19 11:25 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Fernando Nasser fnasser@redhat.com wrote:

...

Hi,

Would it be possible to add:

BSD 2-clause

to our table of valid licenses?

This is already accepted under the "BSD" moniker for Fedora license tags.

Oh, I see it now:

BSD License (two clause)    BSD (...)   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD

Aren't we using this plain "BSD" abbreviation too liberally?

If you look at SPDX you'll see that there are BSD licenses and then BSD licenses, some are ok for FSF, some for OSI, some for both, and some for none (which is scary) (ref.: https://spdx.org/licenses/ ).

We want to get closer to the SPDX maybe it is time to use the more specific abbreviations for these BSD licenses we have.

P.S.: Any interest in adding a SPDX abbrev column to our table?  I can try and help populating it.

--Fernando

Hi, I am re-starting this request because I clouded the discussion with the mention of a SPDX column...

Would it be possible to add: BSD 2-clause to our table of valid licenses? It is already in https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html%3E|BSD-2-Clause| and is OSI-approved. For reference: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html#licenseText I was pointed out that we already have this as just "BSD" : BSD License (two clause)    BSD (...) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD But some are afraid of dropping the "2-Clause" details. Thanks in advance!  P.S.: It is used by something called 'fluentd'.

On 2018-02-26 3:14 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:

We do not currently treat the large number of BSD variants as unique licenses, which is a key difference between Fedora and SPDX.

While I am open to considering revisiting this policy, for now, just use "BSD" in the package spec, and include a comment next to it if you are concerned.

Thanks for the prompt response.

Will tell the packagers.

Cheers, Fernando

~tom