Hi Jilayne,
On Sat, 2023-11-25 at 01:49 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 01:18:22PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:36 AM Mark Wielaard mjw@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 09:41 -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
You could propose this change to the SPDX legal team by submitting an issue at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML but historically they've been very resistant to identifier deprecations (with the notable exception of the GPL identifiers :)
You could also ask Jilayne Lovejoy to consider it, she's one of the SPDX-legal leads and also reads this list.
Great. So yes, that would be nice. So Jilayne, if we could get a generic identifier for this license statement, maybe just call it 'Hybrid-BSD' [*], that would be really helpful.
This would still be really useful. If you know the history behind the version specific identifier, which is, as far as I can tell, not even used by bzip2 itself or by anyone redistributing bzip2, that would be helpful. There is a subpackage of Valgrind (valgrind-devel) that uses kind of a similar text, but in valgrind it is used as a kind of file- based GPL-exception with extra notices at the top and the bottom explaining what the larger work is for which the exception holds, and a disclaimer by the organisation that paid for the work (which I believe isn't legally significant, but Richard thinks is). See also https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/422
BTW. I happen to be one of the upstream maintainers of bzip2 and of valgrind, which both use this license variant for some of the code. So we could do a release that explicitly uses a generic name for this if that helps.
Thanks,
Mark
[*] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD#Hybrid_BSD_(half_BSD,_half_zlib)