Request to Add Brian-Gladman-3-Clause License with Omittable Clause

[nishanthsankaran]

Please add the following license text to the Brian-Gladman-3-Clause license and mark it in blue as omittable:

ALTERNATIVELY, provided that this notice is retained in full, this product may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), in which case the provisions of the GPL apply INSTEAD OF those given above.

We have a variation of the Brian-Gladman-3-Clause license without the above text present in the aesopt.h file.

Requesting to mark the above text as omittable, so that the license text can be used as Brian-Gladman-3-Clause.

[xsuchy]

I think this is more of an exception than a variation of the license.

[nishanthsankaran]

Thank you @xsuchy.

That’s a great point—this does seem to function more as an exception rather than a variation of the license. The core Brian-Gladman-3-Clause license remains unchanged, while the additional clause offers an alternative licensing option under the GPL.

Since this text doesn’t modify the original license but simply provides another distribution choice, marking it as omittable (in blue) ensures clarity. Removing it still preserves the integrity of the Brian-Gladman-3-Clause license, whereas a variation would involve altering its core terms.

According to Matching Guidelines B.3.5, text in italicized blue is considered omittable. The license or exception text will match the specified identifier whether or not this text is included.

Since SPDX license texts for exceptions follow a fixed format, should we add the exception in blue to align with the standard approach? Please let me know your thoughts on this—I’d be happy to adjust if needed!