> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On > Behalf Of VM (Vicky) Brasseur > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 3:14 PM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process > > Purely as an FYI, not to imply support or rejection of an idea to have an "X > projects" requirement, here's how the SPDX License List handles that: > > "The license has actual, substantial use such that it is likely to be encountered. > Substantial use may be demonstrated via use in many projects, or in one or a > few significant projects. For new licenses, there are definitive plans for the > license to be used in one or a few significant projects." > > The full SPDX license inclusion principles are here, for the curious: > https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion- > principles.md
Interestingly enough, the original submission of the Vaccine License to the OSI had what appears to be a phony SPDX designation, "SPDX: Vaccine-1.0 " included in the submitted license text. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2 019-October/004427.html Not sure if they were trying to give the license an air of acceptance, or if they also simultaneously asked SPDX for that designation to be accepted and it was turned down using the criteria above. _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
