> > 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. johannes
