New OSI-approved licenses

Richard Fontana fontana at opensource.org
Sat Dec 5 01:54:42 UTC 2015


Not really. I respect your desire to keep the name of the license
you've been using and appreciate your policy objections to the name of
the Free Public License; however I have no inclination to ask the OSI
to change the name of the approved license (which seems to differ from
0BSD in one respect, namely the normative non-inclusion of a template
copyright notice). 

I think then, if we assume that 0BSD and the Free Public License are
really the same license from the SPDX world view standpoint, that this
may unfortunately be the first departure from the trend of OSI
endorsing the use of SPDX short names (I think the one for the
recently-approved eCos license is a little problematic too). I
encourage the SPDX group to consider coming up with a new short name
for the Free Public License without altering the status of 0BSD.

- RF



On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:37:55PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> 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


More information about the Spdx-legal mailing list