<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:361709724;
mso-list-template-ids:-413386272;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p style='margin-left:.5in'>Russ Nelson wrote:<br>> The problem has always been that open source project accumulate licensors and patches in equal number, and in theory to relicense something requires assent from all licensors. I'm saying that we don't have to worry about them because they are suffering no harm because of #1.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:.5in'>This has been proposed before. What is different now is that the Public Software Fund is going to stand behind this process, and defend the project's editor against lawsuits by any licensors who object to this relicense.<o:p></o:p></p><p>I’m not convinced that “don’t need to worry” and the “Public Software Fund” are sufficient reasons to violate the “no relicensing” rule of law. Although I do agree that the proliferation of “approved” BSD-like licenses is ludicrous, and OSI should simply refuse to do it anymore!<o:p></o:p></p><p>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Russell Nelson<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 17, 2020 8:13 PM<br><b>To:</b> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [License-discuss] A modest proposal to reduce the number of BSD licenses<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>We've all seen the vast variety of BSD licenses. You know the ones I mean: "Do what you want with the code, but if you change it, you can't mis-represent it as the same thing. We don't include any warranty because you didn't pay us for one."<o:p></o:p></p><p>I propose that we find two things:<o:p></o:p></p><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>A pair of BSD-like licenses which are so near to each other as to be practically the same in effect, and<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>A party that is using one of these licenses and is willing to relicense under the other.<o:p></o:p></li></ol><p>The problem has always been that open source project accumulate licensors and patches in equal number, and in theory to relicense something requires assent from all licensors. I'm saying that we don't have to worry about them because they are suffering no harm because of #1.<o:p></o:p></p><p>This has been proposed before. What is different now is that the Public Software Fund is going to stand behind this process, and defend the project's editor against lawsuits by any licensors who object to this relicense.<o:p></o:p></p><p>Doesn't matter which license is primary to the other because this is just a test case. I believe that once people see that a relicense of no significant effect is easy, and lets the OSI make open source licensing less complicated -- which is the organization's long-term goal.<o:p></o:p></p><p>Suggestions for #1 and #2?<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>