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

[McCoy Smith]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of VM (Vicky) Brasseur
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 3:14 PM
> To: license-discuss at 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.