New license request: Gutmann

[xsuchy]

1. License Name: Dumpasn1 License
2. Short identifier: dumpasn1
3. License Author or steward: Unknown
4. Comments: This license was discovered during a license review in the Fedora https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/482 It is used in a package dumpasn1
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/352
6. URL(s): https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/dumpasn1.c
7. OSI Status: Unknown
8. Example Projects: https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/

[xsuchy]

License text:

You can use this code in whatever way you want, as long as you don't try
to claim you wrote it.

Closest match is https://spdx.org/licenses/Zeeff.html but it is different from this license.

[karsten-klein]

ScanCode
identifier: asn1

metaeffekt universe
canonical name: ASN.1 Object Dumping Code License
short identifier: ASN1 (we preserve original case; dots not allowed)

Others
The ScanCode and metaeffekt short Id may be too underspecific. ASN.1 is a wider concept than just code dumping. Therefore, I'd recommend to use a short id that reflects this. E.g. ASN1-object-dumping-code

[jlovejoy]

+1 to add

as for name/id - seems like @xsuchy suggestion is more specific than ASN1, which @karsten-klein has pointed out may be too underspecific. Would that work?

I would also note that the license text is sort of buried in the midst of a bunch of background info, which Scancode includes as part of the license text. I think that @xsuchy has this right in terms of what is the license grant, but I'm wondering if we ought to include the other text and mark it as optional?

[swinslow]

+1 to add

I couldn't get the submitted URL (https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/dumpasn1.c) to load at the moment, but looking at it from the Wayback Machine, I would keep just that line that @xsuchy noted above.

I'd note that this shows up at least as far back as 2002 in Debian mailing list discussions. Which points towards just that first sentence being the operative "license" language here.

I see also that the same author has used that line (standing alone) in other code, see e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20231019232554/https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/breakms.c

Given that, perhaps Gutmann as ID and "Gutmann License" as name?

[jlovejoy]

to add, but need to decide on name and id

[mkdolan]

Given that, perhaps Gutmann as ID and "Gutmann License" as name?

I hate to throw a wrinkle, and I see at least 1 other license on the list that already does what I'm about to say, but I would be hesitant to include a personal name in a public license list.

How about "UseWhatever-ButNotClaim License" and "UWBNC" as a identifier?

[jlovejoy]

@mkdolan - we don't usually use names, but every so often it seems to make sense. There have been many submissions (from Fedora) that are old permissive licenses that don't have a proper title, so we have to come up with some kind of id (and not labor over it too much, which is hard to avoid sometimes!)

[github-actions]

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.