New License Request: TU-Berlin 1.0 and 2.0

[bradleeedmondson]

From A. Wilcox, Project Lead, Adélie Linux, via the legal team's mailing list:

Proposed Full Name:

Technische Universitaet Berlin License

Permissive Technische Universitaet Berlin License [???]

Proposed Short Identifier:

TU-Berlin-1.0

TU-Berlin-2.0

URL references:

1.0:

http://alpha.tmit.bme.hu/pub/audio/gsm-1.0/copyrigh
https://github.com/swh/ladspa/blob/master/gsm/COPYRIGHT

2.0:

https://github.com/CorsixTH/deps/blob/master/licences/libgsm.txt
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu-leb/oneiric/+source/libgsm/+copyright

OSI-approved?

No.

Packages using this license:

gsm / libgsm

via inclusion of gsm code: ladspa, rplay, speex, some builds of vorbis

Date:

1.0: 15-Sep-1992
2.0: 05-Apr-2009

Explanation (non-normative):

I did not find any reference to these licenses in the tracking page. I
have only seen this used in gsm; I do not know if the university has
released other open source projects. (No further packages were found
searching for key, unique phrases in DuckDuckGo nor Google nor GitHub.)

Fedora seems to consider this "MIT", but other than some similarities in
2.0 to MIT/PetSC and MIT/HP, this license has nothing more than a
spiritual relation to MIT in my opinion.

If this should instead be considered a MIT variant, I would be willing
to resubmit as that.

Thanks for your consideration.

Best,
--arw

--
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux

And Dennis reports:

For the record, the proposed license is currently recognized by ScanCode as tu-berlin.

https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/4e63a6775a895fdec5a3a53f96013399fa34b1b7/src/licensedcode/data/licenses/tu-berlin.yml

Regards,
Dennis Clark

[bradleeedmondson]

Discussed on legal call today; vote is to recognize both 1.0 and 2.0 as new licenses on the SPDX License List.

Note that the additional permission added in 2.0 is a close match for a license already on the list, however since it is explicitly cast as "append[ed]" "additional permission[s]" to the 1.0 terms, it is not identical to any existing license on the list.

Approved.

[bradleeedmondson]

@wking Would you be able to file PRs for XML definitions of these two licenses?

[swinslow]

Hi @bradleeedmondson, I'm preparing the markup for these two.