New license request: MIT-Wu [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[richardfontana]

1. License Name: MIT Tom Wu Variant
2. Short identifier: MIT-Wu
3. License Author or steward: Unknown (possibly Tom Wu)
4. Comments: This is a simple FOSS permissive license; the permission statement is taken from the MIT license but it uses a different warranty/liability disclaimer paragraph. It appears on certain source files related to benchmarking of JavaScript in V8 which has found its way into multiple packages in Fedora and other Linux distributions.
5. Standard License Header:
6. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/171
7. URL(s): https://github.com/chromium/octane/blob/master/crypto.js
8. OSI Status: Not Submitted
9. Example Projects: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/5144d608cc2f43bf6b35742773ef0c7d2579ec27/js/src/octane/crypto.js

[richardfontana]

This is now the subject of a Fedora package maintainer's (@omajid) efforts to use SPDX identifiers for his package license metadata: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/102
As noted there the license is determined to be allowed in Fedora.
Therefore we consider this to be a high-priority Fedora issue.

[jlovejoy]

Given this is very similar to MIT, used and allowed in Fedora, I'd say we should add it

[bsdimp]

+1 to allow. Could almost be variation in MIT license...
Not sure why it needs "In addition, the following condition applies: All redistributions must retain an intact copy of this copyright notice and disclaimer." at the end, but maybe that's enough of a condition difference to not try to make it a MIT variant via markup.

[jlovejoy]

agree @bsdimp - the addition of that last sentence is a bit superfluous. But there are some differences in the warranty section that are more worthy of being its own license

[swinslow]

The first two paragraphs (permission grant and condition) are from MIT, while the disclaimer of warranties is from libtiff.

The additional condition at the end doesn't appear to be a match to anything currently on the license list (though as noted above I doubt it has any practical distinction from the main obligation).

Given the above, I'm +1 to add as a separate license. Clearly a permissive-style license and appears in a significant number of projects and commercial products, so meets the license inclusion guidelines.

This makes 3 +1's and no objections since the issue was filed on Oct. 1, so I'm marking this as accepted (particularly in the light of this being marked high priority for Fedora).

[jlovejoy]

License Inclusion Decision

Decision:

• approved
• not approved

License full name

MIT Tom Wu Variant

Short ID

MIT-Wu

XML markup

none

[jlovejoy]

@richardfontana - given this is an easy one, do you want to give the PR for the xml and txt files a try on this one?

[richardfontana]

I will attempt to do so!