license-list-XML
license-list-XML copied to clipboard
spdx
MIT-CMU/PIL - "prior" not included
I found the conversations about adding PIL, but the markup for MIT-CMU was updated instead based on similarities. However, "prior" was left out in without specific, written prior permission, which is in PIL (in the link used as an example). It was pointed out https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2519 but not included. Is there a reason why? If not, can it be added as optional text so it will match?
@capfei - we are talking about https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT-CMU.html right?
and adding "prior" as optional in the last sentence of the first paragraph?
@jlovejoy Yep, that's it! 👍
Change written permission. to written <optional>prior</optional> permission.
I will submit the PR if I get the thumbs up.
I'm open to other peoples' views on whether adding "prior" could be a legally substantive difference.
That said, I note that in HPND (which I believe we included as an OSI-approved license), that entire clause appears to be marked as optional. This suggests that the presence or absence of "prior" probably doesn't make much of a difference, or at least didn't appear to for purposes of HPND.
On that basis, I'd personally be okay with adding prior with <optional> tags, but again, open to others' views on this.
Given that you don't have 'specific, written permission' until you do, and once you do it's additional to the licence itself, my gut reaction is that this isn't substantively different. :slightly_smiling_face:
in my own legal drafting, I have questioned what value "prior" gives in these kinds of clauses as it is, by practicality implied like @seabass-labrax pointed out.
+1 to add the optional tag