New license request: Unlicense-3rd-paragraph [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[robert-scheck]

trafficstars

1. License Name: Adapted from 3rd paragraph of Unlicense 2. Short identifier: Unlicense-3rd-paragraph 3. License Author or steward: Unknown 4. Comments: Used in Fedora and found during a license review, see https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/578 for details. 5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/398 6. URL(s): https://github.com/seanmiddleditch/libtelnet/blob/develop/COPYING 7. OSI Status: Unknown 8. Example Projects: https://github.com/seanmiddleditch/libtelnet

[robert-scheck]

Honestly, I don't know what the license name is (or should be) nor what a proper short identifier would be, given libtelnet upstream calls this "Public Domain" while @richardfontana referred to a derivative of Unlicense.

[richardfontana]

To elaborate a bit, as I think SPDX-legal knows, Fedora has been using an umbrella LicenseRef to represent all sorts of bespoke public domain dedications, but has also been using existing SPDX identifiers for "standardized" instruments that are, essentially, public domain dedications or approximations thereof, as in the case of the Unlicense. In this case, we have a project that has made some minor textual changes to one paragraph of Unlicense, so we are wondering whether SPDX would want to assign an identifier for it much as it has given an identifier for the Unlicense itself.

[xsuchy]

Full text of license:

libtelnet is released to the public domain:

The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright
interest in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication
for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our
heirs and successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
code under copyright law.

[jlovejoy]

as compared to the Unlicense, this is really only a small part of it and is much shorter. It is also shorter than #2585 I think it'd be helpful to discuss these two together and get more input.

I'd be inclined to add it as its own entry, especially if this package is likely to be prevalent outside of Fedora as well.

[karsten-klein]

{metæffekt} Universe canonical name: Public Domain short name: Public-Domain category: Public Domain ScanCode reference id: public-domain OSI status: none

ScanCode matched id: public-domain

Comment Unsure. General topic. How does SPDX represent Public Domain as a concept?

[jlovejoy]

@karsten-klein - SPDX does not represent Public Domain as a concept as per this guidance from some time ago

Due to a large number of very short (e.g., a few words) public domain "dedications" found in Fedora, Fedora has been using one LicenseRef identifier to refer to a collection of texts (which are stored in the Fedora-license-list repo)

[Pizza-Ria]

@richardfontana following up on your statement "Fedora has been using an umbrella LicenseRef to represent all sorts of bespoke public domain dedications." If we grant an SPDX ID to this one, does that open the door to granting an SPDX ID to all the bespoke public domain dedications in Fedora? Or is it just that this one is a subset of the existing UnLicense? If former, I'm ambivalent (leaning disinclined). If the latter, then I'm OK with something like Unlicense-Shortened. I don't like either of the two names proferred ... Unlicense-Third-Paragraph because I don't have the license texts memorized that I feel clued in by this title and the second name for the potential legal assertion with a loaded term like "Public Domain".

[jlovejoy]

@Pizza-Ria - whether SPDX adds this as a new license or not, doesn't have bearing on Fedora other than which SPDX id Fedora will use to represent this text. So, no opening of doors as you noted above.

I'm not sure if this is a subset of the Unlicense or just sort of "borrows" some of the same text. The question then is as to the ID, should we even use "Unlicense" in it at all? (and then what about the other similar issue)?

seems like there is support to add it tho?

[robert-scheck]

@jlovejoy, why has this been assigned to me? I just followed https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/578 as advised by @richardfontana and @xsuchy. I personally don't care whether an SPDX gets assigned at all or which name it will have. I'm just interested in the license identifier that my RPM package in Fedora finally needs to use due to the SPDX migration.

[jlovejoy]

hi @robert-scheck - sorry for any confusion, we use the "assigned" for issues just for who submitted the issues. I guess that may be weird (or redundant?) but in any case, nothing special for you to do here at this point!

[Pizza-Ria]

@jlovejoy I understand that we are not beholden to RedHat's internal naming of these but if we start granting IDs for public domain variants then these reviews are going to get downright annoying. There are probably a thousand or more different variations of PD dedications. Since public domain is not even an OSS license (since copyright is disclaimed), I'd be more in favor of a general categorizer for public domain that all these get grouped under. If that feels like we are making too much of a legal judgment then I'm negative to add.

[jlovejoy]

License Inclusion Decision

Decision:

• [x] approved
• [ ] not approved

Name

Unlicense - libtelnet variant

License ID

Unlicense-libtelnet

XML markup

none

Notes:

This is license contains a small part of it, but is much shorter.

Next steps

If the license has been accepted, please follow the accepted-license process to create the PR.

[github-actions[bot]]

This new license/exception request has been accepted and the information for the license/exception has been merged to the repository. Thank you to everyone who has participated! The license/exception will be published at https://spdx.org/licenses/ as part of the next SPDX License List release, which is expected to be in three months' time or sooner. In the interim, the new license will appear on the license list preview site at https://spdx.github.io/license-list-data/. This is an automated message.