I don't think that is a good idea. I have described the situation to Christian Bundy, the person who submitted the Free Public License, with a link to this discussion. He said he would get back to me by the end of the week. If Christian does not recommend otherwise I will keep things as they currently are on the OSI website.
Richard On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:31:00AM +0000, J Lovejoy wrote: > Having more of a think on this - It may be more appropriate for Rob to talk > to the “Free Public License” folks. > Rob - your thoughts? > > Cheers, > Jilayne > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:56:09AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > >> Hi Jilayne, > >> > >> No but that was my thought as well after reading Rob's response. I > >> will check. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Richard > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 08:16:15AM +0000, J Lovejoy wrote: > >>> Richard, > >>> > >>> Has anyone from OSI gone back to the folks who submitted the “Free Public > >>> License” and ask if they mind or care if the name that Rob prefers is > >>> used instead of the one they suggested? Seems like that could > >>> potentially be an easy solution. > >>> > >>> Jilayne > >>> > >>> SPDX Legal Team co-lead > >>> opensou...@jilayne.com > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Dec 8, 2015, at 6:17 AM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The tl;dr of this whole email is "I humbly ask SPDX to retain both its > >>>> original long and short names for zero clause BSD as the only SDPX > >>>> approved name for this license". > >>>> > >>>> On 12/07/2015 01:56 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 07:30:18PM +0000, J Lovejoy wrote: > >>>>> 3) While I have no inherent problem with the name 'Zero Clause BSD > >>>>> License', it does bother me that the name has 'BSD' in it but the > >>>>> license text is not clearly descended from the BSD license family. > >>>> > >>>> "I have no problem, and here it is..." > >>>> > >>>>> In this sense both the name and the identifier are flawed. There is no > >>>>> parallelism between the Zero Clause BSD License and the well-known > >>>>> 3-clause and 2-clause BSD licenses. I would probably not be objecting > >>>>> to the identifier if it were '0ISC' rather than '0BSD' because the > >>>>> Zero Clause BSD License is a stripped-down ISC license, not a > >>>>> stripped-down BSD license. > >>>> > >>>> So you still haven't looked back at the SPDX approval process for zero > >>>> clause BSD and noticed they raised that objection then, and got an > >>>> answer? > >>>> > >>>> http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-June/001457.html > >>>> > >>>> If the association between this license and ISC was important, why > >>>> didn't OSI's name for it mention ISC instead of making up a new name? > >>>> > >>>> This is not the only public domain license derived from BSD licenses in > >>>> the wild. Here's one that did it by cutting down (I think, they don't > >>>> bother to specify) FreeBSD's license: > >>>> > >>>> http://openwall.info/wiki/john/licensing > >>>> > >>>> And that page links to another project using a variant that cut it down > >>>> a different way (also removing the virality but keeping the disclaimer). > >>>> Lots of people have done this lots of ways over the years. > >>>> > >>>> And yet despite the many possible starting and ending points to strip > >>>> licenses down to public domain variants, OSI approved _exactly_ the same > >>>> text I chose. Which wasn't even submitted to OSI until a month after > >>>> SPDX published their decision to approve it, a year after Android merged > >>>> it, and two and a half years after I'd publicly started using it on a > >>>> project that Linux Weekly News has covered multiple times. > >>>> > >>>> Not noticing _me_ is understandable, although it's not like I was being > >>>> quiet about it (unless you consider giving licensing talks ala > >>>> https://archive.org/download/OhioLinuxfest2013/24-Rob_Landley-The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Copyleft.mp3 > >>>> and http://2014.texaslinuxfest.org/content/rise-and-fall-copyleft.html > >>>> and such to be "quiet"). > >>>> > >>>> I could even understand not noticing what Android was doing, although > >>>> the rest of the industry seems to be paying attention. (The android > >>>> command line is not a peripheral part of android, I got invited to Linux > >>>> Plumber's to talk about this a couple months back, > >>>> https://linuxplumbersconf.org/2015/ocw/proposals/2871 and yes I went > >>>> over the licensing aspect at length in that talk and oh look, > >>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/657139/ not only covers my talk by they linked > >>>> to my license page, using my license's name as the link text. September > >>>> 14 is 2 weeks after the submission OSI acted upon, so presumably right > >>>> during OSI's analysis period?) > >>>> > >>>> OSI failing to notice any of that doesn't surprise me. But OSI didn't > >>>> notice what _SPDX_ was doing, despite claiming to want to use SPDX > >>>> identifiers and thus having pretty much a DUTY to keep up there, and is > >>>> now asking SPDX to change to accommodate the results. > >>>> > >>>> That's the part I don't get. > >>>> > >>>> P.S. The JTR "BSD-like" license above recently came back to my attention > >>>> because although it was initially introduced just for new code (in an > >>>> otherwise GPLv2 project), a few days ago they started a concerted effort > >>>> to clean out their existing codebase so it can all go under this public > >>>> domain "BSD" license: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-users/2015/12/04/2 > >>>> > >>>> I.E. This GPL->PD trend is ongoing, and likely to continue for the > >>>> foreseeable future. That's why it's been a big enough issue for me to > >>>> keep talking about it at conferences for almost three years now. > >>>> > >>>> I seem to be unusually careful in how I handle licensing for an open > >>>> source developer, but people who _haven't_ been a plaintiff in multiple > >>>> GPL enforcement suits and who weren't hired as a consultant by IBM's > >>>> lawyers to help defend against the SCO lawsuit and _don't_ respond to > >>>> people like Bruce Perens with https://busybox.net/~landley/forensics.txt > >>>> are generally doing this stuff in a much more ad-hoc way that > >>>> intentionally keeps lawyers as far away as possible. So legal groups may > >>>> not be promptly hearing directly about it from them, but the return to > >>>> public domain licensing isn't exactly a new issue out in the community. > >>>> > >>>>> 4) Since I am coming at this from a viewpoint that is biased in favor > >>>>> of the name of the license as submitted to the OSI, I can only object > >>>>> to the idea that OSI should be expected to apply the identifier '0BSD' > >>>>> to a license called the Free Public License 1.0.0. > >>>> > >>>> By the time this license was submitted to OSI, SPDX had already > >>>> published its decision to approve it under the original BSD Zero Clause > >>>> name a month and change earlier, Android had merged it the previous > >>>> year, and I'd been publicly using it for 2 and 1/2 years in a project > >>>> covered on multiple occasions by Linux Weekly news. > >>>> > >>>> Suggesting that SPDX amend an established decision predating the > >>>> _submission_ OSI acted upon (let alone OSI's approval process), entirely > >>>> because OSI did not do its homework, is not a comforting precedent. > >>>> > >>>> Until this all instances of this particular license being cut down in > >>>> this particular way that I was aware of traced back to my doing so. > >>>> Other people have cut down plenty of other licenses in other ways for > >>>> this purpose, there are lots of starting and stopping points for a > >>>> "public domain license". I was trying to come up with one that corporate > >>>> legal departments could standardize on and that github could offer in > >>>> its dropdown, and felt the OpenBSD license text best served my purpose > >>>> there. I also emphasized that it was an existing license with half a > >>>> sentence removed as part of this sales pitch. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps the wording and the timing of OSI's submission, with > >>>> approximately the same sales pitch as I gave in my talks and wrote up on > >>>> my website, are just coincidences. I don't care about plagiarism or > >>>> attribution here. What I am annoyed by is that SPDX's approval of the > >>>> license I've been using for years under the name I've been using for > >>>> years is now _retroactively_ threatened by OSI's actions. SPDX refusing > >>>> to approve it would have been their right. (And given they already have > >>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/Unlicense.html and > >>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html would even have been > >>>> understandable.) > >>>> > >>>> OSI coming along after the fact and going "oh, we renamed a license that > >>>> already exists, didn't even start the process until well after your > >>>> decision was published, so clearly YOU should change" is just disturbing. > >>>> > >>>>> 5) For some time there's been some desire on the part of the OSI to > >>>>> make use of the SPDX identifiers, and you can see evidence of this on > >>>>> the OSI website. But I think with the Free Public License 1.0.0 and > >>>>> also the recently-approved eCos License version 2.0 this policy has > >>>>> reached a breaking point. In the case of eCos we can't seriously be > >>>>> expected to entertain use of a short identifier that is longer than > >>>>> the name of the license. > >>>> > >>>> Great, eCos already broke your policy, moot point then. You can stop > >>>> expecting 100% correspondence on every license now and just use the ones > >>>> you find convenient. Glad we could resolve this. > >>>> > >>>> (You're the one who brought it up...?) > >>>> > >>>>>> We endeavor not to change the short identifiers unless there is an > >>>>>> extremely compelling reason and users of the SPDX License List (of > >>>>>> which there are many) rely on us to not make such changes > >>>>>> unnecessarily. > >>>>>> I’m not sure I see the compelling reason here, especially when, as > >>>>>> Rob has now told us, part of the reason he submitted the license > >>>>>> to be on the SPDX License List was as per the request of a large > >>>> company using the SPDX short identifiers. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not suggesting that the identifier be changed, > >>>> > >>>> I also would like to avoid the SPDX identifier(s) changing. > >>>> > >>>>> but rather that two identifiers be adopted, each being considered > >>>>> equally official in an SPDX sense. > >>>> > >>>> Oh please no. > >>>> > >>>> First, two names for the same thing blunts the marketing pitch. Second, > >>>> the venn diagram of "programmers who want something with Free in the > >>>> name" and "programmers who want to get as far away from copyleft as > >>>> possible" is basically two discrete circles. Attaching part of the Free > >>>> Software Foundation's name on this license would be detrimental to what > >>>> I'm trying to accomplish (increasing acceptance of public domain > >>>> licensing and migrating github users off of "no license specified"). > >>>> > >>>>> Ultimately, the issue isn't too important, > >>>> > >>>> If it doesn't affect what SPDX does, I agree. > >>>> > >>>>> but I simply can't bring > >>>>> myself to use "0BSD" on the OSI website in the manner in which other > >>>>> SPDX short identifiers have now been used. > >>>> > >>>> Then... don't use it? > >>>> > >>>> OSI failed to notice that SPDX had already approved a nearly identical > >>>> license a month and change before OSI even received its submission. I > >>>> noticed the approval over a month before your license's submission date > >>>> by checking SPDX's public spreadsheet of upcoming license approvals. > >>>> > >>>> That OSI did _not_ do this, despite OSI's desire to use SPDX > >>>> identifiers, was a failure on OSI's part. You've brought up eCos to > >>>> indicate that this is not a unique failure. > >>>> > >>>> I don't see how resolving the resulting conflict is SPDX's problem? > >>>> > >>>>>> We do have some flexibility with the full name, which would be > >>>>>> reasonably > >>>>>> to change to something like, "BSD Zero Clause / Free Public License > >>>> 1.0.0” > >>>>>> (clunky, perhaps) and then also add a note as Richard did explaining > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> similarity-yet-name-variation-possibility. > >>>> > >>>> Richard Stallman has spent well over a decade attempting to associate > >>>> "free software" with copyleft. If you google for "free public software" > >>>> the first hit is http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html (and > >>>> if you add "license" the first hit is the FSF's GPLv3 page). This is not > >>>> a neutral term when discussing licenses. > >>>> > >>>> I'd really rather ignore OSI entirely than explain that after zero > >>>> clause bsd had been in use for years, after it had been merged into > >>>> android and tizen, and after SPDX had published a decision to approve > >>>> it, OSI randomly accepted the same license under a different and > >>>> misleading name because this guy https://github.com/christianbundy said > >>>> so and OSI didn't do its homework. (Ok, that photo with the caption > >>>> "this guy" would make an entertaining slide, but entertaining damage > >>>> control is still damage control.) > >>>> > >>>> But I doubt it will come up if SPDX leaves the existing names in place. > >>>> I was asked to submit this license to SPDX because people care about > >>>> that. Nobody ever asked me to submit it to OSI. > >>>> > >>>> Rob > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > Spdx-legal mailing list > > Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org > > https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal > > > > SPDX Legal Team co-lead > opensou...@jilayne.com > > _______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
