New license request: Unlicense-variant [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[xsuchy]

1. License Name: Unlicense variant
2. Short identifier: Unlicense-variant
3. License Author or steward: Unknown
4. Comments: This was found during License review in Fedora Linux https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/581 and it it used in a package libwhirpool
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/399
6. URL(s): https://github.com/dfateyev/libwhirlpool/blob/master/README#L27
7. OSI Status: Unknown
8. Example Projects: https://github.com/dfateyev/libwhirlpool

[xsuchy]

The license text:

This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.

Note that this may be related to #2583 that is similar.

[jlovejoy]

this is like a shorter version of the Unlicense - it removes the middle paragraph entirely and the last sentence.

text removed here, that is present in Unlicense:
"In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this software under copyright law."

and

"IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."

I think this makes it different enough to add.

The question then is this something we should add to SPDX given the package it is found in and that it's in Fedora?