The infamous hot-potato "license" is categorized as permissive

[maxhbr]

Hey, maybe that is more like a question than a bug report, but the https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/hot-potato.htm, which is taken from https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses, is listed as being permissive. This does not feel appropriate, for something that is not even really a working license. Classification as being permissive for me implies the statement: "this is a valid license that only has permissive obligations", and I think it is used that way in policy engines like Ort.

But I am also not sure, what other classification would be correct.

There are also two other licenses from the ErikMcClure/bad-licenses list, which are marked as permissive, where the same issue might apply:

• https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/nice.html
• https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/nwhm.html

[pombredanne]

@DennisClark FYI, this is important but not urgent as these are super rare licenses never met in practice.

I could not find much actual usage in the wild ... so much so that most occurrences are pointing to ScanCode or to @ErikMcClure bad-licenses list. In hindsight they could have been just detection rules and may not have deserved a license record!

@maxhbr PR welcomed! these are either Free Festricted or Proprietary IMHO.

[ErikMcClure]

I literally just made up the hot potato license as a joke. The bad-licenses repository contains both bad licenses and joke licenses. No license in the bad-licenses repository should have a license record unless it is actually used as a license in another repository.

[DennisClark]

I think that we should completely deprecate the hot-potato license ASAP.