On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:36 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
