Despite it being called BSD-style I actually think it is more reminiscent of MIT license.
BSD licenses often start with "Redistribution and use..." (https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html). MIT licenses often start with "Permission is hereby granted..." (http://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html). The original license that this one derives from (https://github.com/landley/toybox/blob/c2806decbff81cc05e107a9091042f01ad61dc13/LICENSE) looks very clearly MIT to me (compare with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_2). So I guess there is a difference between how I would classify this versus how it is actually known in the wild. ________________________________________ From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Rob Landley [r...@landley.net] Sent: 15 June 2015 17:59 To: spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org Subject: New License Request: Zero Clause BSD > Submission Requirements: > > Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception. BSD 0-clause "Public Domain Equivalent" License. > Provide a proposed Short Identifier. BSD-0-Clause > Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception > text, either from the author or a community recognized source. http://landley.net/toybox/license.html > Create and attach a text file with the license or exception text > from the url provided in #3. Please proofread the text file to ensure > that: > Information has not been lost or modified. > Formatting is clean and consistent with the license or > exception URL. Copyright 2015 by Your Name Here <y...@email.here> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. > Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved [Yes/No] (see: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). If yes, provide > link to the OSI license and verify that it is the same text as > supplied in #4. No. (I Haven't submitted it to them because they haven't got unlicense, cc0, or wtfpl either. Apparently public domain equivalent is not considered "open source" by those guys?) > Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license or > exception to be included on the SPDX License List, including > identifying at least one program that uses this license. This is the license used by Toybox, which was merged into android and tizen. Other projects are considering it, which is why SPDX was suggested. The above URL has a "Why 0BSD?" section, cut and pasted here (minus the embedded links): Why 0BSD? As with CC0, unlicense, and wtfpl, the intent is to place the licensed material into the public domain, which after decades of FUD (such as the time OSI's ex-lawyer compared placing code into the public domain to abandoning trash by the side of a highway) is considered somehow unsafe. But if some random third party takes public domain code and slaps some other license on it, then it's fine. To work around this perception, the above license is a standard 2-clause BSD license minus the half sentence requiring text copied verbatim into derived works. If 2BSD is ok, the 0BSD should be ok, despite being equivalent to placing code in the public domain. Modifying the license in this way avoids the hole android toolbox fell into where 33 copies of BSD license text were concatenated together when copyright dates changed, or the strange solution the busybox developers used to resolve tension between GPLv2's "no additional restrictions" and BSD's "you must include this large hunk of text" by sticking the two licenses at opposite ends of the file and hoping nobody noticed. -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782 _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal