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 being pedantic.


On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 6:17 AM Fernando Nasser <> wrote:
On 2019-03-14 6:06 a.m., Tom Callaway wrote:
That's just BSD.

Thanks Tom, I do see in

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 licenses file.

As got its own SPDX identifier "BSD-2-Clause" could we not add it too?




On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 5:59 AM Fernando Nasser <> wrote:

Would it be possible to add to

and corresponding databases the license:



P.S.: We currently have only  BSD-2-Clause-Patent

legal mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives: