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

Mon Oct 15 20:12:14 UTC 2018

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:41:27AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> This is such a simple request, I don't see why OSI needs to hold it up any
> longer.

I just want to make a quick independent inquiry into the issue of
which of the two names is more widely used in practice today. As far
as I know this would be the first time the OSI has changed the
reference name of an OSI-approved license, post-approval. I also want
us to be respectful to the submitter of the FPL 1.0.0, Christian
Bundy.

 - Richard

> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Bruce
> 
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 5:51 AM Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 10/09/2018 06:39 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:00:07PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > >> Discussion on this seems to have petered out.
> > >>
> > >> I checked and https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0 is unchanged,
> > (I.E.
> > >> starting with "Note: There is a license that is identical to the Free
> > Public
> > >> License 1.0.0 called the Zero Clause BSD License." but otherwise using
> > the Free
> > >> Public License name.)
> > >>
> > >> What's the next step in the process?
> > >
> > > I think I was the OSI board member you spoke to at LCA (though it was
> > > two years ago, in Hobart). (Leaving aside the issue of graying hair, I
> > > don't think of my hair being "black", possibly because I grew up
> > > around a lot of people whose hair was darker, or closer to black, than
> > > mine.)
> >
> > Yes, I dug up a blog entry that had your name in it after I wrote the first
> > message. Hello.
> >
> > > Anyway: here are some of my thoughts on the matter.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that what you'd like to see is: (a) the OSI
> > > license page for this license to give the 'official' name as Zero
> > > Clause BSD rather than Free Public License 1.0.0; (b) the URL for this
> > > page be presented as something like
> > > https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD.
> >
> > That would be lovely, yes.
> >
> > > I assume you don't object to a
> > > cross-referencing approach that would be the reverse of the current
> > > situation, though I don't think we do anything like that for any other
> > > license.
> >
> > I have no objection to mentioning that OSI once called it by another name,
> > I'd
> > just like the first hit when you google for '0BSD' to stop being your page
> > saying it isn't.
> >
> > I'd like to clear up the perceived confusion about there being two
> > licenses, and
> > the impression that what wikipedia calls a
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_equivalent_license might have
> > something to do with the FSF's "call it Free Software, not Open Source"
> > campaign
> > to promote copyleft.
> >
> > I have evidence this is negatively impacting the adoption of the license.
> >
> > > I think at this point we should primarily be looking at actual usage
> > > of each license name in the real world. Which license name, FPL or
> > > 0BSD, is in wider use? If 0BSD (or Zero Clause BSD) is a more widely
> > > used name for more actual code, I believe OSI should recognize that as
> > > the preferred name.
> >
> > The github thread I linked to
> > (https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/464) was titled
> > "Possibly
> > add 0BSD license". It was started by someone other than me, without my
> > knowledge, using the 0BSD name. The _only_ objection to github doing so
> > (which
> > derailed the attempt) was the naming confusion. I was asked via email to
> > comment
> > on the naming confusing, which is how I found out about the thread.
> >
> > Christian Bundy, the person who submitted the license to OSI, was also
> > asked
> > about the naming confusion and his contributions to the thread included the
> > quotes "we're comfortable using the 0BSD identifier on our license" and
> > "we'll
> > be happy to stand behind any decision that's made (the same way that we
> > support
> > SPDX in giving us the "0BSD" identifier)."
> >
> > I'm unaware of any real-world use of the "Free Public License" name.
> > Google for
> > "free public license" produced no relevant hits on the first 3 pages, but
> > plenty
> > of confusion with other licenses on the first page alone, including:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin_Free_Public_License
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
> >
> > Meanwhile Android has shipped toybox ever since Android M, and I've been
> > asked
> > by multiple people about applying it to their own projects. Here are a
> > couple
> > projects using it I'd never heard of before I just googled for "0bsd" and
> > looked
> > at the first 2 pages of hits:
> >
> > https://nacho4d-nacho4d.blogspot.com/2016/08/license.html
> >
> >
> > https://git.janouch.name/p/sensei-raw-ctl/commit/5f4a442a96b3ccdef4f78be4790f09d1b7b995db
> >
> > In 2015 I was asked by Samsung to submit the toybox license to SPDX, and
> > did so
> > under the "Zero Clause BSD" name I'd used for it since 2013. The SPDX
> > approval
> > process had already concluded and assigned the "0BSD" short identifier for
> > it
> > before the license was ever submitted to OSI.
> >
> > Here's my original submission to SPDX:
> >
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/spdx/2015-June/000974.html
> >
> > Here's the timeline putting OSI's actions in context:
> >
> >
> > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-December/001574.html
> >
> > For more information, see the github thread.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> >
> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
> Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder,
> Open Source Initiative
> President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom
> Initiative.

> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org