New license request: wwl [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[xsuchy]

1. License Name: WWL License 2. Short identifier: wwl 3. License Author or steward: Unknown 4. Comments: This license was discovered during Fedora Linux license review in package wwl. https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/565 5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/391 6. URL(s): http://www.db.net/downloads/wwl+db-1.3.tgz 7. OSI Status: Unknown 8. Example Projects: http://www.db.net/downloads/, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wwl/blob/rawhide/f/wwl.spec#%5C_5

[xsuchy]

Text of the license:

db@FreeBSD.ORG wrote this file.  As long as you retain this notice you
can do whatever you want with this code, except you may not
license it under any form of the GPL.
A postcard or QSL card showing me you appreciate
this code would be nice. Diane Bruce va3db

[karsten-klein]

{metæffekt} Universe canonical name: WWL License short name: WWL category: WWL License OSI status: none

ScanCode matched id: gpl-1.0-plus

Comment Unable to judge whether to add or not.

[Pizza-Ria]

Not allowing GPL is a restriction on use. That seems to take it out of OSD. It potentially restricts other software licensed under the GPL that, if combined, would copyleft a component with this license. Not a fan but I did think the ask for a card was cute. If it was allowed, it should be the Hallmark license. My vote is "no".

[xsuchy]

Devil advocate here:

It potentially restricts other software licensed under the GPL that,

Yes. It is a restriction. But lots of licenses have restriction. You can still distribute/modify in zillions of scenarios.

[swinslow]

I don't think I'd view "you may not license this under the GPL" as a restriction. At least, not one in the sense of "use restrictions" we usually talk about. Arguably any GPL-incompatible license (e.g. Apache-2.0 or CDDL-1.1, if you believe they aren't GPL-compatible) cannot be licensed under the GPL, but would still be "open source" licenses.

(Arguably any software under most non-GPL licenses cannot be simply "license[d]... under the GPL", but that's a rabbit hole I don't really want to go down here.) :)

I view this as being roughly comparable to Beerware (which it feels like it might've been based on). I'd be +1 to add it to the list given this and its inclusion in Fedora.

From a quick search I don't see this showing up in anything other than this wwl package. I'd be fine with wwl as the ID (probably lowercase, as that's how it appears to be rendered in the project?) and "wwl License" as the full name.

[jlovejoy]

also used in Debian, see https://sources.debian.org/src/wwl/1.3%2Bdb-3/wwl.c/ and likely in FreeBSD, given the email address

+1 to add as well, agree with @swinslow 's analysis

[Pizza-Ria]

Defer to the majority given the substantial usage.

[jlovejoy]

thanks @xsuchy !!

note: @swinslow - the WWL is capitalized in the full name, looks like we have always used "title capitalization" in full names, so sticking with that. But lowercase as per your suggestion in id :)

[github-actions[bot]]

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.