Differential D29226 Diff 85600 share/license/README.txt

Changeset View

Standalone View

share/license/README.txt

This file was added.

				SPDX is a standard way of indicating a license for files in an open source
				project's tree.

				The FreeBSD project currently followed the SPDX specification (version 2.2) as
				bzUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions follows (not past I assume) bz: follows (not past I assume)
				articulated in Appendix IV and Appendix V.

				For files in the FreeBSD tree that have a SPDX-License-Identifier line
				confirming to Appendix IV, but does not otherwise contain a license text, this
				bzUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions [files] do not .. bz: [files] do not ..
				directory contains the canonical license for that file (exclusive of Copyright
				claims which are as in the original files, not the license text file). Files
				that contain at least one license text will contain all licenses text for that
				file and the SPDX-License-Identifier line will be informative only.

				Licenses are represented by a short identifier from the following list. The text
				for these licenses will be contained in the share/license/text directory in the
				FreeBSD src repository with a file of the same name as the short identifier with
				".txt" appended to the end. Only those short identifiers appearing below may
				have their license text omitted in the FreeBSD source tree. While other
				identifiers may appear in informative SPDX-License-Identifier line expressions,
				only these are permitted when the license text is omitted. "GPL-2.0+" is an
				alias for "GPL-2.0-or-later".

				In the event that a short identifier appears below, but a file of identical name
				does not appear in the share/license directory, that license text may not be
				omitted from contributed text. Please file a problem report at
				https://bugs.freebsd.org/ to apprise of the issue.

				bzUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions What about Dual licensing? Should this be mentioned as a combination of the below? bz: What about Dual licensing? Should this be mentioned as a combination of the below?
				impAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions The spdx standard covers that, no? imp: The spdx standard covers that, no?
				impAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Or are you asking which dual licenses are allowed? imp: Or are you asking which dual licenses are allowed?
				bzUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions Yes. Do we need to explicitly cover that for FreeBSD? Or maybe the normal license policy needs to be extended for that? Also above it says "Licenses are represented by a short identifier from the following list" ("a" translates to "one" in my non-native English speaker's head). Does this imply "one or a combination of short identifiers"? bz: Yes. Do we need to explicitly cover that for FreeBSD? Or maybe the normal license policy…
				impAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions SPDX specifies those expressions. I'll make that clearer. imp: SPDX specifies those expressions. I'll make that clearer.
				BSD-1-Clause
				BSD-2-Clause
				BSD-2-Clause-Patent
				BSD-3-Clause
				BSD-4-Clause
				GPL-2.0-only
				GPL-2.0-or-later
				ISC
				MIT
				MIT-CMU
				RSA-MD
				X11