That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered. I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License to the same effect on the upcoming release of the SPDX License List.
Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead opensou...@jilayne.com > On Dec 17, 2015, at 12:24 AM, Richard Fontana <font...@opensource.org> wrote: > > I discussed the issue with Christian Bundy. He does not wish to change > the name of the license. With respect to the Zero Clause BSD License I > have therefore retained the existing approach on the OSI website: > > https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical (Zero Clause BSD included > in list, with "0BSD" identifier, with cross reference to Free Public > License) > > https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0 (explanatory note > acknowledges existence of identical Zero Clause BSD License) > > Richard > > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:12:47PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: >> Back home from traveling, I believe the ball is still in your court on this? >> >> Rob >> >> On 12/10/2015 08:58 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: >>> 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
