Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SPDX code? #16

Open
pcuci opened this issue Apr 20, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

SPDX code? #16

pcuci opened this issue Apr 20, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@pcuci
Copy link

pcuci commented Apr 20, 2021

Is there a formal code name for the atmosphere license types?

Trying to suppress this warning message on npm install 😄

npm WARN [email protected] license should be a valid SPDX license expression
@pcuci
Copy link
Author

pcuci commented Jun 29, 2021

@mscarey - have you considered submitting the license to SPDX?

https://tools.spdx.org/app/submit_new_license/

Looks like their form might not be able to handle the additional dynamic provisions (which I think of as a fun new innovation in the licensing space)

@mscarey
Copy link
Contributor

mscarey commented Jul 3, 2021

I wasn't aware of SPDX or the issue with using the licenses on npm. Thanks for telling me. I'd be happy for Atmosphere licenses to be included in SPDX or any similar indexes of licenses.

The dynamic provisions probably are an obstacle. It looks like SPDX has accepted various versions of the Creative Commons License with dynamic provisions, but that was probably based on proof that each version had sufficient users to be significant. Atmosphere licenses have only a few users (including me), and they're splintered among different versions. At a glance, I see Atmosphere Software License Version 0.4–🚪🌳🔌⛅🛂💸 in use on github.com/deposition-cloud/air, github.com/PixelWeaver/ForestFireSegmentation, and github.com/pcuci/dotfiles, but I doubt those three are prominent enough to qualify by themselves. I opened issue #17 for collecting information about repositories where Atmosphere licenses are in use.

Also, the status of the "license steward" could be an issue. Open Austin might continue helping to maintain the Atmosphere License project, but it's not really committed to do so in the long term. I was hoping the project would eventually be blessed by a software licensing expert or an expert in the law of climate change (maybe with revised text), but that hasn't happened.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants