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

Christopher Sean Morrison brlcad at mac.com
Tue Apr 6 15:32:57 UTC 2021

>> I'd still weakly support the OSI retaining the first sentence in the
>> note that says "Despite its name, Zero-Clause BSD is an alteration of
>> the ISC license, and is not textually derived from licenses in the BSD
>> family". I guess I'm seeing it as equivalent to calling MIT No
>> Attribution (https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT-0) "BSD No
>> Attribution" -- surely a lot of people would be annoyed by that.
> Not that I've noticed? I haven't found any software developers annoyed by the
> provenance of 0BSD, and the only person approving or disapproving the use of
> software in corporations that brought it up was you. (And that wasn't even in
> the context of approving the use of software licensed under it within your
> organization, it seemed like an aesthetic complaint?)

I don’t think it’s fair to imply an outlier opinion simply because you’re unaware.  Perhaps others simply are not in your circle of communication or perceive you having an abrasive proclivity for getting on tangential soapboxes and find it tiresome.  Cast a net, and opinions can be found.

I categorically LOVE this new landscape of zero-clause licensing and support 0BSD, yet still find the strategic choice of deriving from ISC yet calling it a BSD mildly annoying.  So awareness++. ;)  

The categoric market recognition engenders obvious benefit, but benefit is not justification.  OpenBSD use and a personal endorsement is also not justification (in my opinion).  Let me grab a Kleenex to wipe the tears.  It’s a misnomer in the strictest sense as there is no provenance from the University of California, Berkeley.  There will inevitably be a point of confusion when someone takes Berkeley's actual license and strips clauses — I look forward to seeing that "BSD-0” propagate.  UCB legal could try to shut it down once it gets on their radar.  So yeah, it’s a little annoying and maybe problematic, but it’s been argued "close enough" in intent and spirit of the landscape of permissive licenses that it’s been given a pass (for now).

It’s ironic that a license devised to remove an attribution requirement is giving attribution to an entity that did not solicit it.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210406/67bd421e/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list