Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190620130148.1674-1-yegorslists@googlemail.com>
 <90ccc515bb26b212b537fc1b0287afaa0f86fdf8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <CAGm1_ksic4xcVdaPAObwwNdaQ19E3ZiK97SkmVmp8kz6H2KpOw@mail.gmail.com> <693753473768100f07de573dd74bf4033618aed8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <693753473768100f07de573dd74bf4033618aed8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@googlemail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 22:32:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGm1_kvK3eWnZk7eDOoqoAiedReJLunKfb4tvhqXU-hriO3itg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add SPDX identifiers
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:36 PM Johannes Berg
<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > You haven't included any documentation that says what the SPDX
> > > identifier, and specifically the "ISC" tag means in the context of the
> > > project, and it's not even the same license text as on spdx.org.
> >
> > What about such definition?
> >
> > SPDX short-form identifiers provide information about licenses that
> > apply to the source file.
>
> It just bothers me that this isn't self-contained - you always have to
> go to spdx.org to really figure out what it means.
>
> > As for the exact license I wasn't sure myself. Buildroot identifies it
> > as ISC [1]. How do you define its license in SPDX terms?
>
> Not sure. Maybe you cannot?
>
> spdx.org says "ISC" is the license that says:
>
> [...] THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ISC DISCLAIMS [...]
>
> while the license here says:
>
> [...] THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS [...]
>
> (and the same in one other place)
>
>
> This might just be an oversight on spdx.org, since the license with "THE
> AUTHOR" *is* typically referred to as "ISC" (e.g.
> https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC), but it still means it's not
> actually identical?
>
> Maybe spdx.org should switch, but then it changing the license text ...
> what if anyone refers to it already?
>
> It's all not very obvious to me.
>
> The kernel side-stepped it and said "let's make it all self-contained",
> which seems saner to me.

I have asked SPDX and this is their answer:
https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2631