search

spdx / license-list-XML

This is the repository for the master files that comprise the SPDX License List
Other
340 stars 274 forks source link

New license request: HIDAPI [SPDX-Online-Tools] #2471

Closed davide125 closed 1 month ago

davide125 commented 3 months ago

1. License Name: HIDAPI 2. Short identifier: HIDAPI 3. License Author or steward: Alan Ott, Signal 11 Software 4. Comments: This license is used in Fedora and was found during license review in https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/513 5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/368 6. URL(s): https://github.com/signal11/hidapi/blob/master/LICENSE-orig.txt 7. OSI Status: Unknown 8. Example Projects: https://github.com/signal11/hidapi

karsten-klein commented 3 months ago

{metæffekt} Universe canonical name: HIDAPI License short name: HIDAPI category: HIDAPI License ScanCode reference id: hidapi OSI status: none Open CoDE status: approved Open CoDE approved license id: hidapi (ScanCode)

ScanCode matched id: hidapi

Comment +1 to add.

Pizza-Ria commented 2 months ago

Struggling with this. The code that brought us this license can be licensed under GPLv3, BSD or Hidapi. So, there are other options. If this is the ONLY component that uses this license (even if that component is in Fedora) and it can be licensed under either of the other two more common licenses, does this one need to be ID'ed as well? Seems like a hybrid of https://spdx.org/licenses/softSurfer.html and https://spdx.org/licenses/TermReadKey.html but I'll admit that the language is different.

jlovejoy commented 1 month ago

it is close in spirit to softSurfer and TermReadKey, but just different enough...

@Pizza-Ria - I don't think the license choice is really a factor for our inclusion principles (but I get where you are coming from in a pragmatic sense ;)

the license expression for this project would be: GPL-3.0-or-later OR BSD-3-Clause or LicenseRef-Hidapi

As much as it does sort of pain me, we probably should add it...

davide125 commented 1 month ago

Speaking as a Fedora packager, I think this should be added so we can accurately represent the license expression for this package. Note that Fedora explicitly discourages packagers from performing effective license analysis, so we don't really have much of a choice besides listing the full expression.

github-actions[bot] commented 1 month ago

This new license/exception request has been accepted and the information for the license/exception has been merged to the repository. Thank you to everyone who has participated! The license/exception will be published at https://spdx.org/licenses/ as part of the next SPDX License List release, which is expected to be in three months' time or sooner. In the interim, the new license will appear on the license list preview site at https://spdx.github.io/license-list-data/. This is an automated message.