<div dir="ltr"><div>I also do not think it counts as an additional condition. Nevertheless, I do not think it is equivalent to the (OSI-approved) MIT license. I also do not think SPDX should treat the two licenses as equivalent for purposes of SPDX identifiers and license text matching.<br><br></div>Richard<br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Josh berkus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org" target="_blank">josh@postgresql.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 11/29/2017 06:22 PM, Kate Stewart wrote:<br>
> And if you look in the individual files on that github repo, you see it<br>
> too...<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://github.com/aws/amazon-freertos/blob/master/lib/FreeRTOS/list.c" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/aws/amazon-<wbr>freertos/blob/master/lib/<wbr>FreeRTOS/list.c</a><br>
<br>
On the upside, I don't think it counts as an additional condition just<br>
because that sentence has no legal force. Of course, I'm not a lawyer,<br>
so maybe I'm wrong.<br>
<br>
--Josh Berkus<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/<wbr>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>license-review</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>