So this is the difficulty. We know of an order of magnitude of different
variants of BSD and MIT (many of which are unclassified by the OSI and
SPDX). They're all functionally identical. Are you volunteering to audit
all the Fedora packages to correct the license tags? I'm not. :)
Today, we don't burden the packager to determine which slight rewording of
BSD is in their package, especially when there is no real benefit from
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 6:17 AM Fernando Nasser <fnasser(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2019-03-14 6:06 a.m., Tom Callaway wrote:
That's just BSD.
Thanks Tom, I do see in https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
*Note: This license has also been called the "Simplified BSD License" and
the "FreeBSD License". See also the 3-clause BSD License
but this causes us some problems...
The licenses are collected automatically and included in the package docs
and there are instance like:
and other similar entries with this license abbreviation.
The License: label has a and with the 3 licenses listed, and just BSD will
appear discrepant from what is included by the automatically generated
got its own SPDX
identifier "BSD-2-Clause" could we not add it too?
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 5:59 AM Fernando Nasser <fnasser(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Would it be possible to add to
> and corresponding databases the license:
> BSD-2-Clause https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
> P.S.: We currently have only BSD-2-Clause-Patent
> legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: