Did this ever get resolved? On 11/17/2015 12:51 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:32:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: >>>> 2) Free Public License 1.0.0 >>>> Text of approved license contained within: >>>> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-August/001104.html >>> >>> We have added as of v2.2 - http://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html - although it was submitted using a different name as suggested by the submitter (who I think said he authored the license… or at least seemed to know a lot about it’s origins and the suggested name, which we went with - see http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-June/001443.html for that thread). >>> >>> Would the OSI oppose the name we already went with?? >> >> Hmm, I think this is really a case of two people independently >> inventing approximately the same thing at about the same time,
Given the timeline, it's more likely they copied the license from Android. March 2013: I start using this license: http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2013-March/000794.html November 2014: Android merges toybox to replace toolbox: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=76861#c11 January 2015: Linux Weekly News covers toybox's addition to Android: https://lwn.net/Articles/629362/ May 2015: Android-M preview containing toybox distributed to developers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Marshmallow June 2015: Either Samsung or Sony (I forget which) asks me to submit the the toybox license to SPDX to simplify their internal paperwork: http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-June/001443.html August 30, 2015: These guys submit the license to OSI. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-August/001104.html I didn't submit my public domain equivalent license to OSI because their lawyer wrote an article literally comparing public domain software to abandoning trash by the side of a highway (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 paragraph 5), and if you google for "Linux Public Domain" it's still the second hit. >> where >> 'invention' means removing some language from an existing short >> license. Yes, it is a minor variant of an existing BSD license. Specifically, the OpenBSD template license (http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html links to http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD) which is why I felt justified in calling it a BSD license. There were already "2 clause", "3 clause", and "4 clause" BSD licenses commonly referred to, "zero clause" to mean public domain didn't seem like a stretch (and is also what the Creative Commons guys chose with CC0). It also makes it easy for corporate legal departments that have approved existing BSD licenses to rubber-stamp another. I chose this name for a reason. In the "copyleft vs bsd" axis, this is more BSD than BSD. "Free" is the Free Software Foundation's rallying cry (and the reason OSI had to come up with "Open Source" to counter "Free Software"). Sticking the word "Free" on a public domain equivalent license (as far from copyleft as you can get) is either intentionally confusing or deeply clueless. Part of my attraction to public domain licensing is trying to counteract the damage GPLv3 did to the community at large when it fragmented copyleft into incompatible factions. There's no such thing as "The GPL" anymore, Linux and Samba implement two ends of the same protocol, are both GPL, and neither can use the other's code. Copyleft is now a significant _barrier_ to code reuse within copylefted projects. The result seems to be a generation of programmers who are lumping software copyrights in with software patents as "too dumb to live", and taking a napster-style civil disobedience approach, opting out of licensing their code at ALL until the whole corrupt intellectual property edifice collapses under its own weight. "No License Specified" continues to be the most common license on github _after_ its CEO made a big push to standardize on MIT licensing as a default. The percentage has gone _up_ in the past year: https://speakerdeck.com/benbalter/open-source-licensing-by-the-numbers?slide=41 If I just wanted a public domain license I could have grabbed creative commons zero (or the libtomcrypt license or unlicense.org or...) but I wanted the strategic advantage of the name "Zero Clause BSD" because the ability to say "we're more BSD than BSD" is an easy sell that short-circuits a lot of explanation. Attaching the Free Software Foundation's codeword "Free" to a non-copyleft license is... odd. Saying "when we use the word 'Free' we mean something different than when the Free Software Foundation uses the word 'Free'" is not an argument I want to make, especially not to people who have developed an _aversion_ to copyleft. > Looks like Rob Landley was using it a year or more earlier: > https://lwn.net/Articles/608082/ According to http://landley.net/hg/toybox/rev/264b9da809df since March 14, 2013, so 2 and a half years earlier than August 30 of this year. Checking my old email, I noticed 0BSD marked approved for 2.2 in your public spreadsheet July 19, 2015, so you'd already approved it a month and a half before the other guy submitted it to OSI. I'm guessing what happened here is that Android's "about->licenses" thing gives license text but not license names, so they made one up. Rob _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
