> we can't even be bothered to use the SPX licensing identifier for BuSL correctly Not taking a side on this, but just for historical context: the business sou

> we can't even be bothered to use the SPX licensing identifier for BuSL correctly Not taking a side on this, but just for historical context: the business source license was originally created by MariaDB, who referred to it as "BSL" and continue to do so [1]. So in the database world, calling it "BSL" is not especially unusual. If I understand correctly, SPDX already assigned BSL as the short-code for the Boost Software License, so they assigned BuSL to the Business Source License. Although the Boost Software License has been around since 2003, aside from Boost using it (obviously) it doesn't seem to be a popular choice among other projects. So adopters of the Business Source License then have to choose between agreeing with the license's creators vs agreeing with SPDX. [1] https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/ https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/