[License-discuss] [License-review] Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD... again.

[McCoy Smith]

Isn't the problem here that this license was submitted initially for
approval under "Free Public License-1.0.0" therefore in order to understand
the debate about the approval, one would at least need to reference that
name so that anyone interested in the discussion about approval would know
to look under that name? I'm not sure this is a problem that OSI created.

Also: it looks like this license was being called Free Public License 1.0.0
elsewhere several years ago, so I'm not sure it's OSI that did the renaming
(or improper naming).
https://tldrlegal.com/license/free-public-license-1.0.0#summary
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Rob Landley
> Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 4:18 AM
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] Please rename "Free Public
> License-1.0.0" to 0BSD... again.
> 
> In 2018 OSI held a vote to rename 0BSD (not dual-name it):
> 
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-
> review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003830.html
> 
> The license both shipped in Android M and was approved as Zero Clause BSD
> by SPDX before it was ever submitted to OSI under a different name. The
> person who submitted it to OSI under another name is on record as not
> minding calling it 0BSD, he just wants to see it used. Kirk McKusick has
> approved calling it Zero Clause BSD:
> 
>   https://landley.net/toybox/0bsd-mckusick.txt
> 
> A single OSI board member came to the SPDX mailing list in 2015 to defend
> OSI's conflicting position, and was denied by SPDX. That same OSI board
> member was the main voice objecting to the discussion here in 2018 when I
> raised the issue of acknowledging the license's original name and
conforming
> to SPDX.
> 
> After his position was voted down, he continued to publicly disagree with
the
> results after the vote:
> 
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-
> review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003831.html
> 
> At the time I assumed this board member was the one who memorialized
> the dispute with a single "yeah but" note in OSI's 0BSD page:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20181219001235/https://opensource.org/licen
> ses/0BSD
> 
> I noted at the time that this struck me as problematic, but chose not to
raise
> the issue here because letting this person "have the last word" seemed
> prudent:
> 
>   https://landley.net/notes-2018.html#14-11-2018
> 
> Unfortunately, since then someone has changed OSI's page to put the
> deadname as a prominent dual name, in boldface next to the official name
> and also in the page title:
> 
>   https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
> 
> Which was then propagated back to wikipedia:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSD_licenses&type=revision&dif
> f=1007661505&oldid=1007656464
> 
> Could someone please point me to where in the archives this issue was
> raised again and voted on again to change the name back without notifying
> me the issue was once again in dispute?
> 
> If there wasn't a second vote changing the name again, and "0BSD" is still
the
> acknowledged name for it, could OSI please remove all mention of the no
> longer relevant name from the 0BSD page? It does not need a "historical"
> mention because it was not what the license was called when it was created
> and is not what the license is called now. It does nothing but cause
market
> confusion (Free as in Free Software Foundation, on the GPL side of GPL-vs-
> BSD axis, it must be REALLY viral), and apparently if we don't remove all
of
> this tumor it metastasizes.
> 
> Thank you for your time,
> 
> Rob
> 
> P.S. My apologies if I come off a tad frustrated.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by
the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> 
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org