Steve Winslow

> ugh, indeed, there is an extra "that" in there which makes no sense and is probably a typo Yup -- at a wild guess, it may be carried through...

I'm also +1 to add, based on our practice of adding any CC licenses that are identified in use out in the real world (and apparently this one is!)

I'm +1 to add each of these as separate historical licenses, probably with `MIPS` and `Third-Eye` as the identifiers.

A few further notes: * see prior related discussion at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1785#issuecomment-1387354256 * other slight variations on this text show up in various other spots in the Linux kernel. At some...

It sounds like the general consensus here is not to add this license, or at least this particular version of it (seeing that the kernel seems to have several variations...

Discussed on 2024-08-08 legal team call; lack of consensus about the preferred way to handle it. Given the imminent upcoming release, there's more that would be needed to be figured...

+1 to add, fine with name and ID

I think @richardfontana's comment pasted by @jlovejoy above does a much better job of articulating what I was trying to say during the legal team call just now :) Based...

Comparing this to [the current markup for BSD-3-Clause](https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/BSD-3-Clause.xml), I'm seeing two differences from the "standard" text visible on the [License List website](https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html): 1. In the final all-caps disclaimer paragraph, the...

Thanks for raising this one. The changes from `Unicode-TOU` to this one are significant enough that this wouldn't be accommodated via markup to `Unicode-TOU`, and so this one should get...