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(a)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
If you have time to look at the Hybrid-BSD license and which kind of
top/bottom "legal" notices are generic or not that would be really
appreciated.
> 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.
>
> [*]
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD#Hybrid_BSD_(half_BSD,_half_z...