[License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process

[VM (Vicky) Brasseur]

Andrew DeMarsh wrote on 25/8/20 13:51:
> There are plenty of legal professionals on this list that can most 
> likely write a far better rule/requirment, I personally would not throw 
> in the X projects requirement as I think that changes the rules 
> significantly from what they are today and would require a lot more 
> input/consideration then simply "be professional, no mix and match 
> licenses". approach despite that being the "silent" rule in L-D and L-R.

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

--V