Re: New OSI-approved licenses


J Lovejoy
 

HI All,

Having a bit of a hard time following this, as I think Rob may have confused who was speaking on which organization’s behalf (Richard is coming from the OSI perspective, here)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the suggestion seems to be:

OSI has now posted the "Free Public License 1.0.0" and wants to use the short identifier FPL-1.0.0

This license is, according to the SPDX Matching Guidelines, the same license the Rob submitted previously and which was added to SPDX License List v2.2 as "BSD Zero Clause License” using the short identifier 0BSD

Now, the OSI wants SPDX to change its short identifier to FPL-1.0.0 - is that right? And if so, why would you want us to do that?

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.

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. However, changing the short identifier is a much more serious consideration. We have a legal call this Thursday, so any info as to why we should change that part or if my above idea would be amenable to all would be helpful.

Thanks,

Jilayne

SPDX Legal Team co-lead
opensource@...

On Dec 5, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana@...> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 12:57:43AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
As far as I can tell, OSI continues to be unaware that unlicense.org or
creative commons zero even exist.
The OSI is aware of them. There's actually been interest for some time
in getting OSI approval of a license (or license-like instrument) in
this category, what I've recently been calling 'ultrapermissive'. CC0
was actually submitted by Creative Commons for OSI approval a few
years ago. The submission was withdrawn because of controversy over
clause 4a in CC0 ("No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived,
abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this
document."). The Unlicense hasn't been submitted for approval.

I have now modified http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical to
include Zero Clause BSD License (0BSD) with a cross reference to the
Free Public License, and I have also added the following prefatory
text to http://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0:
"Note: There is a license that is identical to the Free Public License
1.0.0 called the Zero Clause BSD License. Apart from the name, the
only difference is that the Zero Clause BSD License has generally been
used with a copyright notice, while the Free Public License has
generally been used without a copyright notice."

Hopefully that will remove whatever possibility there was of anyone
thinking the Zero Clause BSD License (for those who choose to call it
that) is not now OSI-approved by virtue of the approval of the Free
Public License.

However I still recommend that the SPDX group come up with a short
identifier for the Free Public License that is different from "0BSD";
I'm going to pretend that it would be "FPL-1.0.0".

Richard


Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.