McCoy Smith wrote: > the … site does list the Classpath Exception > (https://spdx.org/licenses/Classpath-exception-2.0.html) and the GCC RTL > Exception (https://spdx.org/licenses/GCC-exception-3.1.html), of which you > say you were a "key drafter," so I'm not sure why you think that site > should be dismissed.
I think it's probably obvious that no author endorses every list that their works of authorship show up on. But I think you were probably joking. 🤣 In seriousness, the list isn't helpful for someone *choosing* an additional permission because (as mentioned) the list is incomplete, but also because there is no analysis of effectiveness, usefulness, efficacy and popularity on that site (by design, AFAIK). The list gives just enough information to be dangerous for AP-seekers. But, you're correct that a true unified catalog of APs and analysis of them does not exist. Tangentially, this blog post that my colleague Karen and I wrote might be of some interest in this context. In it, we analyze two different additional permissions that are attempting to accomplish the same task and explain why (in our opinion) one is a better choice than the other: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2019/may/11/termination-backports/ While the post is about additional permissions unlike the one Joel is pondering, the on-topic point there is that there are so many ways to draft these things, and so many potential pitfalls, and that is what leads me to first focus on “are you really sure this is what you need?” questions first. -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ 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
